Courthouse Proposed for Children's Cases Only

By JEFFREY MILLER

Feb. 19, 1989 12 AM PT

Times Staff Writer

For children who must be removed from their parents’ care because of abuse or neglect, proceedings in Los Angeles County Dependency Court can exacerbate the trauma of their tumultuous home life.

The Dependency Court is housed in the Criminal Courts Building in downtown Los Angeles, a facility designed for hardened lawbreakers, not frightened children. Families waiting for their hearings must often stand in crowded, noisy corridors outside the courtrooms.

The crush in the hallways has been bad enough to prompt the city fire marshal to cite the court for being “grossly overcrowded” on the 12th floor, where dependency hearings are held. Clerks, court reporters and counselors from the child advocate’s office are housed in makeshift offices in unventilated storage rooms.

However, court officials hope that can change soon with the proposed construction of the Los Angeles County Children’s Court in Monterey Park. When its doors open, perhaps early in 1992, the court will be unlike any other facility in the nation.

“Nobody has ever built a building like this,” said Frank Zolin, executive officer of the county court system.

“This is the first time that anyone has designed a children’s court where the entire caseload” would involve neglected and abused children. “There’s nothing even similar.”

The County Board of Supervisors will consider giving final design and construction approval for the six-story, $45.1-million project next month.

Assuming that the project is approved, ground would be broken next year at the six-acre site on the western edge of Monterey Park, near the junction of the Long Beach and San Bernardino freeways.

In contrast to the forbidding environs of the Criminal Courts Building, the Children’s Court would be designed to be “child sensitive,” Zolin said. The court building would include such amenities as diaper-changing rooms and secured play areas.

“We will have scaled-down courtrooms that are less formal and less imposing in an effort to reduce the trauma on the children,” Zolin said. “Obviously, all the areas that will serve the children, the waiting rooms, shelter care, will be designed with children in mind.”

The facility will house all the various ancillary agencies that provide services to children. The county Department of Children’s Services, the county counsel and the Sheriff’s Department will have office space in the building, as will private psychiatrists, psychologists and volunteers from the child advocate’s office.

Children whose cases are heard in the court will benefit from its proximity to Cal State Los Angeles, just across the San Bernardino Freeway. Zolin said the university and the court will be able to develop a closer relationship that will benefit both institutions.

“People now working in Dependency Court will do in-service training at the university--people in the county counsel, sheriff’s deputies and counselors from the Department of Children’s Services,” Zolin said. “Also, it will be a learning opportunity for students from Cal State L.A. studying sociology and social case work.”

Cal State Los Angeles President James S. Rosser said the court would provide an ideal setting for internships for students in the School of Health and Human Services. Attorneys and counselors from the court would also be welcome to serve as adjunct faculty at the university.

Zolin added that Cal State Los Angeles is a leading university in studying the particular social problems manifested in many of the cases heard each day in Dependency Court.

“Cal State L.A. is one of the up-and-coming universities in the U.S. dealing with urban problems,” Zolin said. “I believe proximity to Cal State L.A. and this partnership is really going to enhance research into domestic violence and child neglect.”

Rosser said the relationship between the university and the court “fits in with the urban focus commitment we have as part of our mission as a university.” He said he was pleased to see the court “coming to a positive fruition.”

The Dependency Court was originally moved to the Criminal Courts Building on a “temporary basis” in 1978. Since virtually its first day there, court officials complained that a building created for criminal proceedings was not the place to decide such a sensitive matter as whether a child should be removed from his or her family.

“One of the classic stories is about when one of the . . . youngsters was walking in through the front door and saw the sign,” Zolin said. “He turned to the case worker and said, ‘Am I a criminal?’ ”

“The Dependency Court should never have been located in the environment of the Criminal Courts Building,” he added. “That was an interim relocation that lasted 11 years.”

The inadequacies of the Criminal Courts Building were worsened in the early 1980s as the public and government agencies became more aware of child abuse. In the 1984-85 fiscal year, the caseload at the Dependency Court rose 23%.

At the same time, the growing backlog of criminal cases made courtroom space downtown a precious commodity. Superior Court judges have said overcrowding at the Criminal Courts Building could be eased considerably if the Dependency Court vacated the courtrooms on the 12th floor.

But the search for a new location for the Dependency Court was delayed by disagreement among officials about location and the type of facility to be used.

At one point, the favored plan was to create 20 courtrooms by remodeling the former Sears, Roebuck store in Alhambra. An additional five courtrooms were to be housed in a satellite office in Irwindale. Eventually, however, court officials concluded that children would be best served in a single, new facility.

The idea is not without its detractors, the most influential of whom is Supervisor Pete Schabarum. Schabarum cast the lone opposing vote in May, 1988, when the Board of Supervisors voted to build the Children’s Court.

Tom Hageman, Schabarum’s assistant chief deputy, said the supervisor opposed the project largely because he believed that it should be coordinated by the county Facilities Management Department, not by Zolin.

“There’s nobody questioning the need for better Dependency Court facilities,” Hageman said. It was who was doing the construction as much as anything else, he added.

Zolin said he took over the project in May under an order by county Chief Administrative Officer Richard B. Dixon.

“I accepted the responsibility of putting the project together after Mr. Dixon made it a condition for there being a project,” Zolin said, adding that Schabarum has long opposed efforts to build a centralized Juvenile Court facility. “Mr. Schabarum has criticized that decision by Mr. Dixon. That may explain his opposition since May of 1988, but Mr. Schabarum has a record” of opposing a new central Juvenile Court for 10 to 12 years, he said.

Schabarum’s opposition was based on his belief that the public would be better served by five satellite children’s courts spread throughout the county, Zolin said.

“I’m sure Mr. Schabarum will express that opinion again when the issue is before the supervisors” in March, Zolin said. “He favors five satellites, but our studies clearly indicate that it’s more cost-beneficial to have a centralized program.”

Hageman said Schabarum’s opposition to the project was not based primarily on his preference for satellite courts, but added: “He thought it could be done at less expense by not building a Taj Mahal.” Schabarum has not decided whether he will oppose the project when the board votes on its final design and construction.

Although the project violates a Monterey Park ordinance prohibiting the construction of buildings over two stories, council members said they see no problem with the courthouse because it will be separated by a freeway from the rest of Monterey Park.

Mayor Barry Hatch said: “We’re pretty stiff on the height limit, but I think this is an area where we can bend on it.”

Hatch said the Children’s Court project will yield social benefits to the county and a financial return to the city. The Children’s Court site was traded by Monterey Park’s Community Redevelopment Agency to the county in exchange for land on the east side of the Long Beach Freeway, near the Los Angeles Corporate Center.

Monterey Park officials had sought to attract a developer to build a hotel near the corporate center. However, they were unable to conclude a deal for a hotel on their original site, which was relatively inaccessible and had the Sybil Brand Institute, the county women’s jail, as a neighbor.

“The land is of little value to us,” Hatch said. As a result of the land swap, he said, Monterey Park has a much better location for a hotel and the county has an adequate site for the Children’s Court.

“We definitely need the court,” Hatch said. “It’s for children who are in trouble.”

Times staff writer Daryl Kelley contributed to this story.