{"id":977196,"date":"2026-08-03T05:24:46","date_gmt":"2026-08-03T05:24:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/977196\/"},"modified":"2026-08-03T05:24:46","modified_gmt":"2026-08-03T05:24:46","slug":"san-diego-court-sought-to-intervene-in-independent-oversight-board-newly-released-records-show-san-diego-union-tribune","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/977196\/","title":{"rendered":"San Diego court sought to intervene in independent oversight board, newly released records show \u2013 San Diego Union-Tribune"},"content":{"rendered":"

Months before the San Diego Superior Court told the Juvenile Justice Commission that it was revoking its administrative support, court officials sought to rewrite the volunteer panel\u2019s bylaws to weaken its authority, newly released documents show.<\/p>\n

Among other changes, the court planned to stop the commission from advising state and local officials about juvenile court operations. It also tried to keep the volunteer board from releasing public findings and promoting policies without the court\u2019s permission.<\/p>\n

The bylaw revisions were suggested to the Juvenile Justice Commission in January 2025, records show \u2014 seven months before Superior Court officials announced they were withdrawing funding and other administrative support from the commission.<\/p>\n

Court officials say their move to withdraw support from the commission was aimed at preserving the court\u2019s neutrality, given it routinely adjudicates legal cases involving young people who enter the juvenile justice system.<\/p>\n

But commission Chair Caitlin Radigan said the court\u2019s actions are interfering with the commission\u2019s ability to provide independent oversight of the juvenile justice system, including of the court itself.<\/p>\n

She released a trove of documents last week that detail the court\u2019s decision to rewrite the bylaws and subsequently suspend its formal support of the commission, an independent oversight board<\/a> that is mandated by state law.<\/p>\n

The proposed revisions were not well received by Radigan or the commission at large.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe farther we move away from connection to community and modeling to citizens what oversight and accountability looks like, the less we are able to achieve that mission of \u2018acting as the public\u2019s conscience,\u2019\u201d Radigan responded to the court in March 2025, records show.<\/p>\n

The San Diego Union-Tribune reported two weeks ago that the Juvenile Justice Commission is in jeopardy of going out of business<\/a> due to the Superior Court decision to withdraw support.<\/p>\n

The independent oversight body is charged with monitoring the juvenile court and juvenile justice programs operated by the San Diego County Probation Department. It also inspects the county facilities that house juvenile offenders and produces reports on its findings.<\/p>\n

The commission is now made up of 10 volunteers, including people who experienced the juvenile justice system themselves as youths. Much of its work is done confidentially, but its reports and other findings traditionally have been posted for the public and the youth-advocacy community.<\/p>\n

The dispute between commissioners and court officials comes as the state Attorney General\u2019s Office is investigating the San Diego County Probation Department for allegations of civil rights violations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

It also comes as the county is defending hundreds of civil lawsuits filed by former foster youth and juvenile hall detainees who say they were sexually assaulted<\/a> while in custody years ago.<\/p>\n

San Diego Superior Court officials stopped posting commission meeting materials and inspection reports on their website on July 1, leaving those who want to monitor the juvenile court, youth detention facilities, group homes or other programs in the dark.<\/p>\n

\"CaitlinCaitlin Radigan, chair of the county Juvenile Justice Commission, and vice chair Aaron Adkins pose outside outside Juvenile Court in San Diego on July 18, 2026. (Kristian Carreon \/ The San Diego Union-Tribune)<\/p>\n

Commissioners told the Union-Tribune last month that they planned to resign en masse next month, when the liability insurance policy that protects them from civil lawsuits is set to lapse.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis is not primarily a dispute about the commission,\u201d Radigan told the Union-Tribune. \u201cIt is a story about how a public institution exercised its authority over a legislatively created oversight body.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe court made the decision,\u201d she said. \u201cThe commission didn\u2019t decide to create this controversy.\u201d<\/p>\n

Judge Michael S. Groch took over as the Superior Court presiding judge Jan. 1. He was not in charge when the court decided to stop providing staff and other services to the Juvenile Justice Commission, but he has not responded to requests\u00a0to discuss the issues.<\/p>\n

A court spokesperson said the commission rejected the proposed changes in June 2025, saying it needed to retain autonomy over reports and public statements. Commissioners also insisted on preserving their authority to publish findings without court approval and engage the public without \u201cexcessive gatekeeping,\u201d spokesperson Emily Cox said by email.<\/p>\n

\u201cJJC would not accept the level of oversight the court considered necessary to ensure ethical compliance,\u201d she said. \u201cWithout such oversight, materials posted on the court\u2019s website or issued publicly could create the inaccurate impression that the court endorsed the JJC\u2019s findings, recommendations or policy positions.\u201d<\/p>\n

Cox said the court would be jeopardizing its own ethical standards if it did not act.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt also created potential liability exposure if inaccurate or defamatory material were published and, most importantly, risked the compromising of the court\u2019s obligation to remain fair, neutral and impartial on policy issues subject to oversight by local government entities,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Independent oversight of juvenile courts and juvenile justice programs, generally run by county probation departments, is codified in state law.<\/p>\n

But the Welfare and Institutions Code<\/a> sections that govern the volunteer oversight boards gives California\u2019s counties broad discretion in determining how to set up and administer the individual bodies.<\/p>\n

In San Diego County, the Juvenile Justice Commission was operated as a county program until 2014, when the Superior Court agreed to take over the responsibility at the county\u2019s request.<\/p>\n

For the past dozen years, the court has hosted commission materials on its website, provided office and other support services and paid the cost of liability insurance that protects volunteer commissioners in case they are sued for service-related claims.<\/p>\n

\"TheThe main visitors entrance to the East Mesa Juvenile Detention Facility in San Diego. (Nelvin C. Cepeda \/ The San Diego Union-Tribune)<\/p>\n

Cox said the Superior Court evaluated the status quo and came away convinced that the commission was legally an arm of San Diego County. It secured an independent legal opinion confirming its determination, she said.<\/p>\n

\u201cBased on the statutory framework and the court\u2019s legal analysis, along with the legal analysis provided by the legal services office of the Judicial Council, the court concluded that JJC is a county entity,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n

Even so, a rival legal opinion written by San Diego County\u2019s top lawyer in 2015 reached a different conclusion.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor the reasons detailed below, I conclude that the JJC is an adjunct of the Superior Court of the state of California and that\u00a0the county does not have the legal obligation to provide the JJC and\/or its members with defense and indemnification in the event a civil action was filed,\u201d then-County Counsel Thomas Montgomery wrote.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhile there may have been some indicia of an employment relationship many years ago, those factors no longer exist and full responsibility for the JJC rests with the state of California,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

According to a recent report by the Children\u2019s Advocacy Institute at the University of San Diego, there is little consistency across California about which entity \u2014 the courts or the county \u2014 should oversee the oversight boards.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe law establishing how juvenile justice commissions should be governed and overseen is not explicitly clear,\u201d the November 2025 analysis said. \u201cThus, it is difficult to ascertain whether any given commission \u2026 is actually operating in compliance with what the law intends.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Children\u2019s Advocacy Institute study found that\u00a017 of the state\u2019s 58 counties operate juvenile justice commissions administered by the courts, while 22 are overseen by counties. Supervision of the commissions in 18 counties are unclear, it said.<\/p>\n

One California county \u2014 Los Angeles \u2014 meets the state mandate by running a probation commission.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, researchers said legislators generally locate oversight authorities outside the control of the agencies being monitored, in order to avoid potential conflicts of interest.<\/p>\n

\u201cCivil grand juries, for example, have long been required to \u2018inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons\u2019 within counties,\u201d the report said. \u201cThey are independent of the agencies they review and function under the auspices of the superior court.\u201d<\/p>\n

The work of the San Diego County Juvenile Justice Commission has already been curtailed\u00a0by the dispute with the Superior Court.<\/p>\n

Meeting agendas, board minutes and even the names of commissioners themselves are no longer available on the court website. The annual reports from facility inspections also are not visible to the public, although commissioners said they are working to find an alternative.<\/p>\n

San Diego County declined to comment on the commission\u2019s latest disclosures.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s nothing new to add,\u201d county spokesperson Tammy Glenn said by email. \u201cThanks for checking in.\u201d<\/p>\n

Last month, Glenn said county officials were working with the court to reach a new agreement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Months before the San Diego Superior Court told the Juvenile Justice Commission that it was revoking its administrative…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":977197,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[5134],"tags":[5229,1582,276,356,5295,1370,728,50,3549,7264,7289,67,586,132,5230,68,2969,9235],"class_list":["post-977196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-san-diego","tag-america","tag-ca","tag-california","tag-courts","tag-crime-and-public-safety","tag-latest-headlines","tag-local-news","tag-news","tag-san-diego","tag-sandiego","tag-top-stories-sdut","tag-united-states","tag-united-states-of-america","tag-unitedstates","tag-unitedstatesofamerica","tag-us","tag-usa","tag-watchdog"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/117029915540157919","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/977196","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=977196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/977196\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/977197"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=977196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=977196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=977196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}