- Emily J. v Weicker
Complaint (conditions of confinement, medical
& mental health care)
Federal Civil Rights Complaint
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
EMILY J., a minor, by and through her next friend,
MARY J., WILLIAM R., a minor, by and through his next friend, SANDRA
R., MATT A., a minor, by and through his next friend, ROSEMARY A.,
RAMON C., a minor, by and through his next friend, MARIA C., MICHAEL
T., a minor, by and through his next friend, DENISE T., MARK B.,
a minor, by and through his next friend, ANNA B., PAUL M., a minor,
by and through his next friend, BARBARA M., RICARDO M., a minor,
by and through his next friend, NEL K.
Plaintiffs v. NO. 3:93 CV 1944 (AVC)
LOWELL P. WEICKER, JR., in his official capacity
as Governor, State of Connecticut, AARON MENT, JR., in his official
capacity as Chief Court Administrator of Superior Court, State of
Connecticut, ANTHONY J. SALIUS, in his official official capacity
as Director, Family Division, Superior Court, State of Connecticut,
PETER DOBSON, in his official capacity as Supervisor, Bridgeport
Juvenile Detention Center DONALD KONEFAL, in his official capacity
as Supervisor, New Haven Juvenile Detention Center, MARK GUASTA,
in his official capacity as Supervisor, Hartford Juvenile Detention
Center, ROSE ALMA SENATORE, in her official capacity as Commissioner,
Department of Children and Families, State of Connecticut,
VINCENT FERRANDINO, in his official capacity
as Commissioner Department of Education, State of Connecticut T.
JOSIHA HAIG, in his official capacity as Superintendent of Schools,
City of Hartford JAMES A. CONNELLY, in his official capacity as
Superintendent of Schools, City of Bridgeport REGINALD MAYO, in
his official capacity as Superintendent of Schools, City of New
Haven
Defendants
OCTOBER 25, 1993 AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit to challenge the
conditions of confinement in the Juvenile Detention Centers operated
by the defendant officials of the State of Connecticut and the state's
treatment of those children confined in those facilities. Specifically,
plaintiffs claim that the overcrowded conditions at the Bridgeport,
Hartford, and New Haven Juvenile Detention Centers (JDC), the lack
of adequate medical and mental health care, classification system,
staffing, recreational, visitation, and educational opportunities,
the lack of alternative placements and the lack of appropriate planning
for these children violate their rights under the First, Sixth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, 42
U.S.C. §1983, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq., §504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, 29 U.S.C. §794, and 42 U.S.C. §620 et seq. and §671 et seq.
I. JURISDICTION
1. This action is authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1983,
20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq., 42 U.S.C. §620 et seq. and §671 et seq.,
and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794, 42 U.S.C. §5633,
and jurisdiction over this action is conferred by 28 U.S.C. §§1331
and 1343(3) and (4).
2. A declaratory judgment is authorized pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Injunctive relief is authorized by Rule 65 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. An award of costs and attorneys'
fees is authorized by 42 U.S.C. §1988.
II. PARTIES
Plaintiffs
3. Plaintiff Emily J. is, and at all times pertinent
herein has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of
Bridgeport, Connecticut. She is a thirteen year old girl who has
been accused of committing a delinquent act, and who has been committed
to the care and custody of defendants at the Bridgeport Juvenile
Detention Center. She brings this lawsuit through her sister and
next friend, Mary J.
4. Plaintiff William R. is, and at all times
pertinent herein has been a citizen of the United States and a resident
of Hartford, Connecticut. He is a thirteen year old boy who has
been accused of committing a delinquent act, and who has been committed
to the care and custody of defendants at the Hartford Juvenile Detention
Center. He brings this lawsuit through his mother and next friend,
Sandra R.
5. Plaintiff Matt A. is, and at all times pertinent
herein has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of
Bridgeport, Connecticut. He is an eleven year old boy who has been
accused of committing a delinquent act, and who has been committed
to the care and custody of defendants at the Bridgeport Juvenile
Detention Center. He brings this lawsuit through his mother and
next friend, Rosemary A.
6. Plaintiff Ramon C. is, and at all times pertinent
herein has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of
Hartford, Connecticut. He is a fourteen year old boy who has been
accused of committing a delinquent act, and who has been committed
to the care and custody of defendants at the Hartford Juvenile Detention
Center. He brings this lawsuit through his mother and next friend,
Maria C.
7. Plaintiff Michael T. is, and at all times
pertinent herein has been a citizen of the United States and a resident
of New Haven, Connecticut. He is a sixteen year old boy who has
been accused of committing a delinquent act, and who has been committed
to the care and custody of defendants at the New Haven Juvenile
Detention Center. He brings this lawsuit through his aunt and next
friend, Denise T.
8. Plaintiff Mark B. is, and at all times pertinent
herein has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of
New Haven, Connecticut. He is a fifteen year old boy who has been
accused of committing a delinquent act, and who has been committed
to the care and custody of defendants at the New Haven Juvenile
Detention Center. He brings this lawsuit through his mother and
next friend, Anna B.
9. Plaintiff Paul M. is, and at all times pertinent
herein has been a citizen of the United States and a resident of
North Haven, Connecticut. He is a fifteen year old boy who has been
accused of committing a delinquent act, and who has been committed
to the care and custody of defendants at the New Haven Juvenile
Detention Center. He brings this lawsuit through his mother and
next friend, Barbara M.
10. Plaintiff Ricardo M. is, and at all times
pertinent herein has been a citizen of the United States and a resident
of Stratford, Connecticut. He is a fifteen year old boy who has
been adjudicated of committing a delinquent act, and who has been
committed to the care and custody of defendants at the Bridgeport
Juvenile Detention Center. He brings this lawsuit through his mother
and next friend, Nel K. Defendants
11. Defendant Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., is and
at all times pertinent herein has been Governor of the State of
Connecticut. Defendant Weicker is empowered to take any action concerning
the protection of the citizens of the State and is required to prepare
a budget for the State. He is also authorized pursuant to C.G.S.
§4-28(a) to apply for federal funds or designate any commissioner,
officer or agency of the State to apply for, accept, and expend
federal funds allocated or payable to the State, to establish and
administer or supervise the administration of any state-wide plan
which might be required as a condition for receipt of federal funds,
and to take all such other actions as are necessary to fulfill the
federal requirements. He is sued in his official capacity.
12. Defendant Aaron Ment, Judge is, and at all
times pertinent herein has been Chief Court Administrator, Superior
Court for the State of Connecticut. Pursuant to C.G.S. §46b-123,
he is responsible for appointing such detention personnel as is
necessary for the treatment and handling of juvenile matters. He
is sued in his official administrative capacity as Chief Court Administrator,
and not in any judicial capacity.
13. Defendant Anthony J. Salius is, and at all
times pertinent herein has been, Director of the Family Division,
Superior Court for the State of Connecticut. Pursuant to C.G.S.
§46b-123, he is responsible for the overall supervision and direction
of all juvenile detention centers in which plaintiffs are confined,
for the promulgation and implementation of all policies and procedures
of the Juvenile Detention Centers and for protecting the safety
and welfare of all juveniles committed to his care and custody.
He is sued in his official capacity.
14. Defendant Peter Dobson is, and at all times
pertinent herein has been, Supervisor of Bridgeport Juvenile Detention
Center. Pursuant to C.G.S. §46b-123, he is responsible for the safety
of the children residing in that facility. He is sued in his official
capacity.
15. Defendant David Konefal is, and at all times
pertinent herein has been, Supervisor of New Haven Juvenile Detention
Center. Pursuant to C.G.S. §46b-123, he is responsible for the safety
of the children residing in that facility. He is sued in his official
capacity.
16. Defendant Mark Guasta is, and at all times
pertinent herein has been, Supervisor of the Hartford Juvenile Detention
Center. Pursuant to C.G.S. §46b-123, he is responsible for the safety
of the children residing in that facility. He is sued in his official
capacity.
17. Defendant Rose Alma Senatore is and at all
time pertinent herein has been Commissioner of the Department of
Children and Families (DCF). Pursuant to C.G.S. §17a-6, she is responsible
for the overall operation, direction and supervision of DCF, for
preparing and administering DCF's budget, for adopting and enforcing
regulations and rules for the Department's operation, and for the
administration of all state and federal funds received by DCF for
its programs and activities. Defendant Senatore, as administrator
of the state's services program pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §620 et seq.
and §671 et seq., has the additional responsibility to provide for
the coordination of services for children which will best promote
their welfare.
18. Defendant Vincent Ferrandino is and at all
times pertinent herein has been Commissioner of the Department of
Education. Pursuant to C.G.S. §10-3a, he is responsible for the
overall operation, direction and supervision of the Department,
and for the administration of all state and federal funds received
by Department of Education for its programs and activities. He is
sued in his official capacity.
19. Defendant T. Josiha Haig is and at all times
pertinent herein has been Superintendent of Schools for the City
of Hartford. In that capacity, he has general supervisory responsibility
over the Hartford public schools and is responsible for the provision
of educational services to school age children, including special
education services to children confined at the HJDC. He is sued
in his official capacity.
20. Defendant James A. Connelly is and at all
times pertinent herein has been Superintendent of Schools for the
City of Bridgeport. In that capacity, he has general supervisory
responsibility over the Bridgeport public schools and is responsible
for the provision of educational services to school age children,
including special education services to children confined at the
BJDC. He is sued in his official capacity.
21. Defendant Reginald Mayo is and at all times
pertinent herein has been Superintendent of Schools for the City
of New Haven. In that capacity, he has general supervisory responsibility
over the New Haven public schools and is responsible for the provision
of educational services to school age children, including special
education services to children confined at the NHJDC. He is sued
in his official capacity.
III. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
22. The named plaintiffs bring this action as
a class action pursuant to Rule 23 (b)(1) and (2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
23. Plaintiffs file this complaint on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated and seek injunctive
and declaratory relief from the unconstitutional and unlawful actions
and inactions of defendants, as herein set forth.
24. The named plaintiffs are children who are
detained in one of the three juvenile detention centers and have
suffered the deprivations of rights claimed herein.
25. The class plaintiffs seek to represent is
composed of all children who are, or will be, in the care, custody,
or supervision of defendants as a result of being accused of a delinquent
act or adjudicated as a delinquent.
26. Joinder of all members is impracticable
as the class includes more than sixty children at any one time,
and over 3,000 children during the course of a year, and class membership
fluctuates continuously.
27. There are many questions of law and fact
common to the members of the plaintiff class including: a. whether
defendants' failure to provide adequate living conditions, recreational
opportunities, staffing, rehabilitative treatment, classification,
evaluation and alternative placements, violates plaintiffs' rights
to personal safety and non-punitive conditions of confinement and
their right to treatment in the least restrictive setting and under
the least restrictive conditions as guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. §5633;
b. whether defendants have failed to adopt and implement policies
and protocols to provide adequate medical and mental health care
to plaintiffs and those they seek to represent, in violation of
their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution; c. whether defendants' failure to provide students,
including handicapped and disabled students with a free and appropriate
public education deprive plaintiffs of their rights guaranteed by
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et
seq. (P.L. 94-142) and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R.
§§300 et seq., by 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794,
and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; d.
whether defendants' interference with plaintiffs' access to their
families and attorneys violates plaintiffs' rights as guaranteed
by the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution; and e. whether defendants' failure to develop appropriate
plans and coordinate services for plaintiffs violates plaintiffs'
rights as guaranteed by Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Adoption Assistance
and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. §620 et seq. and §671 et seq.
28. The claims of the representative parties
are typical of those of the class in that the constitutional and
statutory deprivations alleged by the named plaintiffs and caused
by defendants are materially the same as those suffered by all other
class members.
29. The representative parties will fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class. The named plaintiffs
have no interests antagonistic to those of the class. Further, plaintiffs
are represented by attorneys experienced in children's rights and
federal constitutional litigation.
30. The prosecution of separate actions by individual
members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying
adjudications with respect to individual members of the class which
would establish incompatible standards of conduct for defendants.
31. Defendants have consistently acted and refused
to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making
appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief with respect
to the class as a whole.
IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS DESCRIPTION OF PLAINTIFFS
EMILY J.
32. Plaintiff Emily J. is a thirteen year child
who has been incarcerated at the Bridgeport Juvenile Detention Center
on delinquent charges since August 31, 1993.
33. Emily is from a dysfunctional family. Prior
to her arrest, she had been living with her sister. Her mother is
homeless and itinerant and her father's whereabouts are unknown.
34. Prior to her incarceration, Emily had been
truant from school for a period of two years. She has been found
to be a "handicapped" child under special education laws and was
placed in an ungraded special class but was "dropped due to lack
of attendance" by the Bridgeport Board of Education.
35. In March of 1993, Emily was placed in the
custody of DCF as a result of a voluntary agreement by her mother.
She was placed in a shelter in May but did not remain there. Although
Emily has a DCF worker, the worker has not been to see her in detention.
36. The probation officer filed an "uncared
for" petition on Emily on September 3, 1993 alleging that her mother
is unable to provide a home for her.
37. After being remanded to the Detention Center,
Emily was incarcerated in a cell with two other girls. The ventilation
in the cell made breathing difficult.
38. Since her incarceration, Emily has not been
outside at all or breathed any fresh air.
39. Much of her time has been spent locked alone
in her room for disciplinary reasons. She was locked for three days
in a row, having been given consecutive periods of "room confinement."
Defendants provide no toilet facilities in the cells to which plaintiffs
are confined. While locked in her room, defendants' staff failed
to release her to go to the bathroom. After urinating on the floor,
she was given additional "room confinement."
40. When locked in her room, she has not been
allowed out to eat or receive educational services.
41. Many of the staff have been verbally abusive
towards her.
42. When in general population, Emily sits
either in a crowded dayroom which triples as the recreation area
and educational area, or is confined to a small area on the "girl's"
side of the building. Other than playing cards, there are virtually
no other recreational opportunities for her and the other girls
in the facility.
43. Since she has been incarcerated, Emily has
received very few phone calls and visits.
44. Although prescribed medication by the physician
at the facility, on at least one occasion, staff forgot to give
her the medication.
45. The clothing Emily has been given to wear
has been inappropriate. She has been given a sweatshirt to wear
in hot weather.
46. On several occasions, Emily has had difficulty
contacting her attorneys. The detention staff has declined to respond
to her repeated requests to speak to her attorney whose office is
in the adjacent building.
47. Emily has not received any counseling or
other mental health interventions. She has gone to bed crying at
night.
WILLIAM R.
48. Plaintiff William R. is a thirteen year
old child who has been detained at the Hartford Juvenile Detention
Center since August 16, 1993.
49. William is a child who has been identified
as having many needs. He has witnessed a lot of family violence.
At the age of eight, he was placed at the ABC program at Mt. Sinai
Hospital.
50. In February, 1993, William was voluntarily
placed with DCF by his mother. He was placed unsuccessfully in several
shelters in May and June. He has not seen his DCF worker since June.
Although DCF intended to close his case after he was held in detention,
they were finally persuaded otherwise by William's attorney.
51. William has been identified as needing a
highly structured twenty- four hour treatment milieu. He has low
IQ, and reading impairment, lacks a supportive primary family, and
has lacked a sufficient treatment program up to this point. He has
been incarcerated for over forty days awaiting residential placement.
52. While incarcerated, William has been locked
with another child in a room designed for one child.
53. William has been subjected to excessive
and inappropriate discipline by staff. He has been given forty-eight
hours of "room confinement" which has been spread out over a four
day period of time. He has not been allowed to have any reading
or writing materials in his room. When confined, he has not been
released for any recreation or physical exercise.
54. Due to the stress and tension of the overcrowding,
William has witnessed and been involved in fights among the children.
55. Other than playing basketball, and foozball,
he has engaged in few recreational opportunities. William has not
been outside since being incarcerated except for a one and a half
hour furlough for a funeral and a preplacement visit.
56. William is a special education student.
He reads at a third grade level. Although his individual education
plan has been requested from the Hartford school system, it has
not been forthcoming. Because of the crowding and lack of sufficient
educational staff, he is only in class less than two hours per day
in a space inappropriate to meet his needs. He has received no support
services such as individual counseling.
57. Plaintiff Matt A. is eleven years old and
has been locked up at the Bridgeport Juvenile Detention Center since
August 31, 1993.
58. Matt is of very small build for his age,
being 55" tall and weighing only sixty-eight pounds.
59. He has been held with two other boys in
a cell built for one because of the overcrowding.
60. He has not been allowed to go outside since
being incarcerated, nor has he breathed any fresh air in over three
weeks.
61. Because of the overcrowding in the facility,
much of Matt's time is idle. Other than play basketball and go to
school for less than two hours a day in the crowded room, there
is little else to occupy his time.
62. He has received excessive "room confinement,"
being locked in his room for hours at a time. On one occasion, he
received six hours of solitary confinement for allegedly talking
back to a staff member.
63. The Bridgeport Board of Education has concluded
that due to "poor self-esteem and minimal interpersonal relation
skills" he is handicapped under federal and state law, in need of
special education services, and designated him socially/emotionally
maladjusted. He has not received any of the support services to
which he is entitled.
64. Matt's grandmother has raised Matt since
he was a baby. Despite this fact, when his grandmother has attempted
to come to visit him or call him, or he has tried to reach her,
staff has not allowed the contact.
65. Plaintiff Ramon C. is a fourteen year old
child who has been incarcerated at the Hartford Juvenile Detention
Center since September 11, 1993.
66. Ramon cannot read or write. He was recently
given a promotion by exception to the ninth grade in the Hartford
Public School system having been in the special education program
at Quirk Middle School. He has serious deficits in language functioning.
67. A recent psychological evaluation of Ramon
recommended exploration of a diagnosis of mental retardation.
68. Ramon is not receiving any support services
to which he is entitled in the educational program at the detention
center. Although his individual educational program requires l 1/2
hours of speech and language therapy and 1/2 hour of counseling
by a social worker weekly, he is not receiving such services. He
is being taught in a very small room where two special education
teachers attempt to deliver educational services to a group of students
at the same time. Because he is so cognitively limited, he needs
a one to one learning environment and individual counseling.
69. Because of the overcrowding, Ramon has slept
on the floor in a room with one other child.
70. He has had difficulty in contacting his
mother. When he has called and the line is busy, he is not allowed
to make another phone call.
71. He has not been outside since being incarcerated.
72. Ramon has witnessed staff hurting children
by bending their arms and legs until they cry, slamming them on
the floor, and dragging them across the rug.
73. Upon information and belief, he has not
been seen by any doctor since being incarcerated.
74. Plaintiff Michael T. is a sixteen year old
child who has been incarcerated at the New Haven Juvenile Detention
Center since December 29, 1992.
75. He has many psychological problems, including
post-traumatic stress disorder. He was referred to the Henry D.
Altobello Children and Youth Center for psychiatric evaluation but
after receiving such evaluation, was sent back to detention. Although
the evaluation indicated he was in need of regular individual counseling,
he has not received such counseling.
76. Michael has been evaluated as needing treatment
in a residential facility. Because of the lack of facilities, he
has been waiting for a placement for over nine months.
77. Michael has been diagnosed as having a systolic
heart murmur and an umbilical hernia. Although he is in need of
an operation, he has not yet received it.
78. His educational program has not been more
than two hours a day. Because on many occasions it consisted of
watching nature films, he has not been attending school.
79. He has frequently been given excessive
lock time for talking back to staff and hitting a ball onto the
roof. On one occasion, he was locked for twenty-four hours.
80. Michael is sleeping on the floor because
of the overcrowding, locked in a room with another child.
81. Plaintiff Mark B. is a fifteen year old
child who has been incarcerated at the New Haven Juvenile Detention
Center since August 26, 1993.
82. Over one year ago, Mark was in a motorcycle
accident and as a result of his injuries, he suffered neurological
damage. He now exhibits serious cognitive limitations and has an
IQ of 50. He suffers from symptoms of attention defecit hyperactive
disorder, or "ADHD."
83. He continually has flashbacks regarding
the accident which awakens him at night.
84. Since being incarcerated, he has received
no intensive psychotherapy, although he is in need of and desires
to see a psychiatrist.
85. Previous to his incarceration, he was taking
dilantin for seizures and other medication. He has not been placed
on any medication since his incarceration.
86. Because of his limited functioning, incarceration
in the detention facility is causing him extreme emotional distress
and he has experienced a lot of shaking.
87. He has been identified as a learning disabled/socially
and emotionally maladjusted student, but is not receiving the special
education and support services to which he is entitled.
88. A residential treatment facility was recommended
by the court clinic and he has been awaiting placement.
89. Plaintiff Paul M. is a fifteen year old
child who has been incarcerated in the New Haven Juvenile Detention
Center since September 17, 1993. He is being held at the facility
on a violation of probation for violating curfew on a minor misdemeanor
charge.
90. Paul has been diagnosed as having dysthymia,
ADHD, and alcohol abuse.
91. He has been hospitalized at Elmcrest for
his chemical dependency on alcohol. He also has had a history of
cutting his wrists. Prior to his incarceration, he had dropped out
of school.
92. Because of the overcrowding, he has slept
on the floor in a cell with another child.
93. He was not examined by any medical personnel
until three days after admittance to the detention facility.
94. Paul attends school only two hours a day.
95. He has been subject to verbal abuse by the
staff. On one occasion, he was given "room confinement" for asking
a question to a staff member.
96. Paul has received no group or individual
counseling for his alcohol problem since being incarcerated.
97. Paul's mother is unwilling to take Paul
home and an alternative placement has been recommended but not yet
found for him.
98. Ricardo M. is a fifteen year old child who has
been held at the Bridgeport Detention Center since July 23, 1993.
99. Because of the overcrowding, Ricardo has
slept on the floor of a cell within the facility. He recently was
housed in a room with one other child isolated from the rest of
the children behind steel doors. This room is not physically located
either near the girls' wing or the boys' wing, nor is it within
visual distance of any staff. It is referred to by the children
as the "dungeon."
100. During periods of overcrowding, he has
witnessed the escalation of fights among the children and the tension
among staff.
101. During the four months he has been incarcerated,
he has been outside the facility for outdoor recreation only once.
102. The space constraints at the facility have
restricted any opportunities for meaningful indoor recreation. On
occasions, staff have refused to put up the pingpong table, limiting
access to such opportunities to an even greater extent.
103. He has received excessive amounts of "room
confinement" for periods of up to ten hours a day, which has been
imposed on top of the standard amount of time all children are confined
to their rooms on any given day. He has been so confined for consecutive
days at a time. During periods of room confinement, he has not been
allowed out of his room to eat. His visits with his family have
been cut short because of his status on "room confinement."
104. Ricardo had attended a special educational
program for learning- disabled children and those who have social
and emotional problems. Although he has been identified as requiring
an intensive special education remediation program with a considerable
amount of individualized assistance, the educational program at
the detention center which he has been provided has been insufficient
to meet his needs.
105. On August 25, 1993 his pretrial charges
were negotiated, at which time it was agreed that he would go to
a residential placement. On Sptember 17, 1993, he entered a plea
and was adjudicated delinquent. He has been awaiting a placement
since that time.
106. In 1992, a total of 9,924 children were
referred to the Superior Court, Juvenile Matters, either accused
of committing a delinquent act or because they behaved in a way
defined under the statute as part of a "family with service needs."
("FWSN")
107. Some children are admitted to detention
for serious juvenile offenses, while many are admitted as FWSN on
a violation of court order or for minor offenses such as breach
of peace. Some are committed to the Department of Children and Families
(DCF) under the responsibility of defendant Senatore at the time
they enter the detention facilities.
108. There are three juvenile detention centers,
located in Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven, which house children
accused of committing a delinquent act who have been remanded by
Superior Court, Juvenile Matters, during the pendency of their cases.
The centers also house children who have been adjudicated delinquent
and who are awaiting placement. Approximately 3,016 children were
admitted to juvenile detention centers during 1992.
109. These three detention centers are administered
by the Judicial Department under the auspices of defendant Aaron
Ment, Chief Court Administrator and defendant Anthony Salius, Director
of the Family Division, Superior Court.
110. The majority of these children are from
economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Approximately 45% are African
American, and 30% are Latino. Almost 80% are from Bridgeport, New
Haven, and Hartford. Some of the children are as young as eight
years old.
111. These children have had limited socialization
from an early age and suffer from the damaging effects of poverty,
substance abuse, and violence in their families and neighborhoods.
112. Children stay for varying lengths of time ranging from twenty-four
hours to over a year.
113. Pursuant to C.G.S. §46b-133(g) the Judicial
Department has established bed capacity at each detention facility
as follows: Bridgeport 16 New Haven 24 Hartford 24
114. Intake, average length of stay, and average
daily population have increased in recent years at all three facilities.
Since 1988, the number of cases entering the juvenile justice system
has increased by 23% during a period of time when the staff and
related resources in that division have been reduced because of
budget constraints.
115. The current statewide capacity of the three
Juvenile Detention Centers is sixty-four. During the last six months,
the average daily population has been 114. With 3,115 children admitted
during 1992-93, the daily population averaged 128% of capacity.
On some occasions, the centers have exceeded 130 juveniles.
116. Although the Bridgeport Juvenile Detention
Center ("BJDC") has a rated capacity of sixteen, (ten boys and six
girls), the population for the past year has risen well beyond that
number. The ADP in January, 1992 was nineteen while the ADP in January,
1993 was 28.3. In August, 1993, the ADP rose to 30.6. On some occasions,
during the last six months, the population has risen to over 40.
117. The New Haven Juvenile Detention Center
("NHJDC") has also experienced severe overcrowding. Although the
capacity is twenty-four, on many days it accommodates over forty
children. On at least one occasion, the population has reached as
high as sixty-five.
118. The Hartford Juvenile Detention Center
("HJDC") has a capacity of twenty-four. In June and July of 1993,
the ADP was forty-three. The facility has held as many as fifty-five
children.
119. Defendants have crammed plaintiff children
into small cells, often doubling and tripling up in space clearly
designed for only one child. As a result, in some cells, two children
sleep on a thin gym mat on the floor next to one child in a bunk.
At other times, four or five children are housed in rooms designed
for two persons.
120. Defendants' actions, inactions, policies
and practices which result in overcrowding place enormous pressure
on both staff and facilities. It has caused stress on staff, created
a heightened sense of fear among the children, and increased the
risk of children harming each other.
121. Defendants fail to maintain an adequate
classification system. Boys are placed inappropriately on the girls'
wing at all three facilities because of space limitations. This
practice has severely compromised the privacy of the girls. In addition,
children as young as eight to ten are housed with older teens. Children
who are identified as FWSN and incarcerated on a violation of court
order or breach of peace are commingled with children accused of
serious juvenile offenses.
122. On some occasions when the HJDC is overcrowded,
children from Hartford are transferred to the New Haven and Bridgeport
detention centers.
123. Children from outside the major cities
are also housed in the Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven detention
centers. Because of the infrequent scheduling of juvenile court
sessions in outlying towns, these children wait in detention to
be presented in a court where their families can attend the court
hearings.
124. Defendants' overcrowding has impeded the
safety of the children and caused the children to become frustrated
more quickly, causing increased tension and more fights. As recently
as April, 1993, state police had to be called to control the youths
in the BJDC. On another occasion in August, 1993, at BJDC, a child
allegedly became the victim of a sexual assault while tripled in
a cell designed for one child. In May, 1993, a sexual assault allegedly
occurred on a mentally disabled child housed at HJDC in a cell designed
for one child.
125. Staff has responded to overcrowding by
confining children to their rooms more frequently and for longer
periods of time.
126. Defendants have failed to provide adequate
shower and toilet facilities to meet the needs of all the children
in the overcrowded facilities. Showers are severely limited in time.
In BJDC and HJDC, staff fails to regularly let children out of their
cells to use the bathrooms. On some occasions, children have been
forced to urinate in their towels, or on the floor.
127. At BJDC, there is no emergency release
to open the rooms. In the event of a fire, all of the room doors
have to be unlocked individually using keys.
128. The room doors at BJDC and HJDC open inward,
creating an additional barrier to rapid evacuation during a fire
-- especially when children are being held three or more to a room.
129. Upon information and belief, there have
been no fire inspections of any of the detention facilities for
the past two years.
130. In BJDC, one room functions as a day-room,
eating area, educational space, visiting area, and recreational
space, leaving inadequate room for any of these activities.
131. In all the facilities, defendants fail
to maintain adequate ventilation, causing it to be too hot in summer
and too cold in winter.
132. At several of the facilities, defendants
do not provide children with enough food. Although defendants have
a menu, it is often not followed. Food has been withheld as punishment.
Staff has taken food home.
133. Defendants do not provide children with
adequate clean underwear in a timely fashion because of the overcrowding.
134. The recreational opportunities as described
in Section D, infra are severely restricted. Because of the overcrowding,
there is insufficient room to engage in active or passive exercise.
135. Although defendants are directed, pursuant
to C.G.S. §46b-133(g), to admit children to detention only under
certain criteria when the detention center equals or exceeds maximum
capacity, they have not exercised such authority, instead leaving
the facilities overcrowded.
136. Defendants have also failed to implement
other remedies to reduce overcrowding, including but not limited
to expediting and expanding intensive supervision and implementing
an intake system to reduce the number of DCF children, FWSN children,
and other children who are incarcerated on non-dangerous or minor
offenses.
137. An increasing number of children entrusted
to defendants' custody are seriously emotionally disturbed. Some
show evidence of fetal-alcohol syndrome. Others have spent years
in the custody of DCF, sometimes moving from one placement to another.
There has been a significant increase in the number who seem very
depressed or who have suicidal thoughts.
138. Defendants have failed to establish an
adequate system for children to receive appropriate assessments
including a psychological screening at admission from trained staff.
Defendants have no adequate provisions for children to be seen by
a psychologist or psychiatrist shortly after admission if their
current offense, behavior subsequent to admission, or records indicate
potential or previous psychiatric problems.
139. Defendants have failed to establish a reliable
system to provide detention staff with evaluations and case management
support regarding apparently disturbed, depressed, suicidal and
agitated children.
140. As a result of defendants' failures described
above and plaintiffs' myriad mental health problems, staff have
a difficult time managing such children.
141. Defendants do not provide adequate continuity
of care for children with ongoing mental health problems. Defendants
rarely make contact made with previous health care providers. No
discharge summaries are written and forwarded to the child's new
placement.
142. Defendants have no adequate suicide prevention
plan nor has there been any formal or appropriate training for staff
in mental health problems or suicide prevention.
143. In some instances, children who could benefit
from psychotropic medication either are unable to receive it because
there are no psychiatrists to administer it, or do receive it from
staff with inadequate training and supervision.
144. Although defendants have identified the
need to address areas of anger and stress management, AIDS prevention,
self-esteem, conflict resolution, health care, basic life skills,
and peer/family relationships, inadequate steps have been taken
to implement counseling in any of these areas.
145. Although many children are from alcoholic
backgrounds, defendants have discontinued both Al-anon and AA at
the centers.
146. Defendants have failed to institute a culturally
and linguistically appropriate system to deliver mental health care
to many Latino children who are incarcerated.
147. The children who enter the juvenile detention
centers are medically at high risk. Because of their poverty backgrounds,
many have not seen a physician since early childhood and lack a
regular source of coordinated health care prior to incarceration.
Some enter as pregnant teenagers who are at high risk of delivering
a low birth weight baby. Others enter with HIV and other contagious
diseases such as venereal disease. Still others suffer from alcohol
and other drug abuse.
148. Defendants provide only approximately 65%
of the juveniles with any kind of medical screening during the first
three days of their stay. This screening is extremely cursory and
does not include such information as medical history, immunizations,
alcohol or drug use, whether the child needs medication for on-going
conditions such as epilepsy, screening for pregnancy, tuberculosis,
sickle cell anemia and other genetic diseases, and venereal disease.
In many cases it is administered by staff who have not been specifically
trained by medical personnel.
149. Defendants' failure to properly screen
to detect contagious diseases and identify conditions that require
immediate treatment places children at medical risk.
150. Intake and other staff have no adequate
training in detecting or treating communicable diseases, operate
without written guidelines on disease detection, and are not supervised
by medically trained personnel. Children are admitted to general
population with significant communicable diseases such as hepatitis,
chicken pox, measles, and staph infections, as well as conditions
such as ring worm, lice, and scabies.
151. Although HIV infection was the second leading
cause of death among fifteen to twenty-four year olds in the United
States, and was the second leading cause of death among men and
women ages twenty-five to forty-four in Connecticut, defendants
fail to provide children adequate AIDS education and counseling,
and appropriate medical care for HIV infection.
152. Some children receive no routine medical
examination, dental exam, educational evaluation, family and social
summary, or psychological evaluation prior to discharge.
153. Defendants have contracted with physicians
to deliver medical services to each JDC for only two ninety minute
visits weekly. In NHJDC, a physician is allowed to spend an additional
3 hours per week. This amount of coverage does not allow for adequate
screening, daily sick call, on-going services for continuing medical
needs, or more specialized diagnostic procedures including blood
work.
154. There are no medics on staff at any of
the detention facilities.
155. Girls have no access on a routine basis
to appropriate reproductive health care. Girls who are pregnant
receive inadequate prenatal care, diet, and counseling or none at
all.
156. There is also inadequate space to isolate
children with communicable diseases in a medical unit.
157. The defendants have failed to put in place
any organized quality assurance program to monitor, analyze, and
improve medical and mental health services.
158. Although defendants Salius and Ment asked
for additional funds to upgrade medical services, defendant Weicker
failed to include such request in the Judicial Department biennial
budget he submitted to the legislature for fiscal years 1993-1995.
159. Although adolescents need regular exercise
for proper growth, and as an outlet for tensions and frustrations
that develop in a confined setting, defendants never permit the
children to go outside at HJDC and rarely at BJDC. None of the windows
open, so the children are never exposed to fresh, outside air.
160. At NHJDC, children are allowed outside
dependent on the weather, desires and availability of adequate staff.
On occasions, there has been inadequate staff to allow the children
to go outside.
161. At all facilities, the indoor recreation
areas are insufficient to adequately meet the children's need for
physical activity.
162. For the girls at the facilities, there
is virtually no organized recreation, since the boys monopolize
the basketball court.
163. Passive recreation consists of watching
TV and playing cards or board games. As a result of defendants'
failure to organize any meaningful and substantial programming,
children spend much of the time during their days idle. This is
particularly true from Friday to Monday.
164. Children on discipline status are denied
indoor and outdoor recreation.
165. The JDC staffing consists of Supervisors,
Assistant Supervisors, Shift Supervisors, Juvenile Detention Officers,
Food Service Coordinators, and Clerical workers. Defendants have
created a serious shortage of staff, resulting in substantial numbers
of hours in overtime. For example, in 1992-93 there were 8,832 hours
in Bridgeport, 30,896 hours in New Haven, and 29,136 hours in Hartford
for a total of 68,864 hours which needed to be filled by overtime
and per diems.
166. The large number of hours provided by per
diems causes such problems as having less qualified and experienced
staff and inappropriate training. This staffing pattern compromises
the safety and welfare of the children.
167. Defendants provide no resources for either
timely or specialized training for new employees or sufficient refresher
training. This lack of staff training has made potentially dangerous
situations worsen as well as caused stress to be inadequately handled
by staff.
168. Defendants Salius and Ment previously had
established a three-week staff training course for new employees
but have discontinued such training.
169. Although staff deals with a population
that exhibits a high incidence of psychopathology, learning disabilities,
attention deficit disorder, and other handicapping conditions, defendants
provide inadequate staff training in these areas. As a result, the
special needs of these children are not met, and they are sometimes
severely mistreated.
170. Defendants' failure to employ adequately
trained staff results in lack of attention to plaintiffs' problems
during confinement, lack of appropriate assessment of plaintiffs'
physical and emotional needs, and lack of remedial programs. Such
failure also subjects plaintiffs to serious harm from both personnel
and other detainees.
171. Because of inadequate staff qualifications
and training, children are often subjected to extreme and inappropriate
verbal abuse by staff members.
172. Although many children are admitted to
detention on very minor allegations because the police have not
or could not contact parents or relatives, the detention centers
have no organized system or staff to contact parents and families,
especially those without telephones. Children are held waiting,
sometimes for days, until probation staff or DCF staff contact families
or find alternative placements.
173. Despite the fact that defendants have
identified a number of measures to correct the staffing and training
problems, defendants have failed to implement these recommendations.
174. Although many of the children are Latino
and speak Spanish as their primary language, on certain shifts there
is insufficient staff who speak Spanish. On occasion, children have
been ordered to stop speaking Spanish. Without Spanish- speaking
staff, the ability to gather vital medical and other information
from Spanish- speaking parents has been limited.
175. The current educational program fails to
adequately assess children upon entrance to determine the extent
of their special education needs, if any, and to place them in appropriate
educational programs equivalent to children outside the facility.
176. The educational services delivered to special
education students are insufficient. There are often no planning
and placement team ("PPT") meetings, or individual education plans
("IEP") as required by state and federal law.
177. When IEPs are developed, they are often
not followed. For those children diagnosed as "socially and emotionally
maladjusted," defendants have failed to provide the necessary support
services, including speech and hearing therapy, and counseling services.
178. Defendants have failed to institute a
system for coordination with the student's school of origin both
while the child is in detention and after the child leaves.
179. At all three facilities, children receive
inadequate educational instruction time, usually no more than two
hours per day.
180. At all three facilities, there is insufficient
space to accommodate any meaningful educational program.
181. Contrary to the mandates of 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(1)(B),
and regulations promulgated thereunder, specifically 34 C.F.R. 300.514,
defendants have failed to recruit, train or assign "surrogate parents"
to DCF-committed children confined at the detention centers who
are eligible for and/or in need of special education services.
182. From 1986 to the present, the State Department
of Education and the New Haven, Bridgeport, and Hartford public
school systems have been informed about and are aware of the problems
relating to the delivery of educational services at the detention
facilities.
183. Defendant Vincent Ferrandino, as the Commissioner
of the Department of Education, and defendants Haig, Mayo and Connelly
as Superintendents of Schools for Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport
respectively, have failed to take appropriate action to correct
the deficiencies in the delivery of educational services.
184. The Connecticut Department of Education
receives federal funds to provide educational services for all qualified
children within the State of Connecticut.
185. Visitation and telephone policies are extremely
limited at all three facilities. Visits are restricted to parents,
guardians, lawyers, clergy, social workers, and probation officers.
Children in the centers are not allowed to visit with their siblings,
friends, or any adult relatives other than their parents, without
special permission. Special permission cannot be obtained for visits
from siblings or friends under the age of sixteen.
186. Visiting hours are very limited. At Hartford,
there is only one hour of visiting on weekdays and two hours on
weekend days. At Bridgeport, there are only two hours of visiting
on week days and four hours on other days, but visits are limited
for any given child to ten to twenty minutes. At New Haven, there
are four hours available for visitation, but visits are limited
to one hour for any given child.
187. There is insufficient space for confidential
communications between the children and their attorneys.
188. Defendants allow plaintiffs and their class
only one outgoing telephone call each day. At New Haven, this call
is restricted to five minutes, even if it is a call to a lawyer.
At Hartford, the call may only be placed between 2:30 and 4:00 p.m.
or 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. Children are not allowed to call their friends
or relatives other than their parents. If the line is busy when
a child makes a call, some detention staff do not let the child
call again until the next day.
189. Despite the fact that state law, C.G.S.
§46b-133(d), prohibits solitary confinement, defendants have placed
children in solitary confinement in their rooms as routinely-imposed
punishment for misbehavior. Some children have been given four days
of room confinement. At some of the facilities, the children are
not released for meals, recreation, education, or exercise. Because
some staff are slow to determine whether children in room confinement
are in need of sanitary facilities, on some occasions, children
have urinated in their rooms. On occasion, children have been left
in urine soaked clothing for long periods of time.
190. Often there are no attempts made to try
less restrictive alternatives.
191. There are no procedures in place to ensure
that discipline is fairly and consistently applied. Children are
locked in their rooms at the discretion of individual staff members
with no review by other staff or supervisors and with no opportunity
or mechanism for children to defend their actions. As a result,
discipline is inconsistent, arbitrary, and often excessive.
192. Some children have been locked for excessive
periods of time for calling out the name of a staff member, talking
to a child in another cell, or asking questions.
193. On many occasions, all of the children
are "locked down" (i.e., confined to their rooms) because of the
behavior of a single child.
194. Children are inappropriately physically
restrained by staff. Staff have hit children, and used "pain compliance"
techniques on them without appropriate mental health interventions
or appropriate training.
195. Because staff is not trained in regard
to the handicapping conditions of children, many children who have
learning and other disabilities, such as attention deficit disorder
or auditory problems, are inappropriately punished with excessive
amounts of room confinement.
196. DCF is responsible for developing a state
plan and ensuring inter- agency coordination and cooperation to
provide appropriate services for all children who are entitled to
services and benefits under 42 U.S.C. §620 et seq. and §671 et seq.
197. The State of Connecticut receives substantial
federal funding under 42 U.S.C. §620 et seq. and §671 et seq. Nevertheless,
defendant Senatore has failed to adequately provide coordination
of services for those children brought before the Superior Court
and entitled to such services under the federal statute which will
best promote their welfare. As a result, many children are either
placed in juvenile detention centers or remain in those facilities
for longer than appropriate because alternative programs have not
been provided for them, either as an alternative to detention altogether
or as a placement following adjudication by the Superior Court.
198. Federal law provides federal reimbursement
for the placement of those members of the plaintiff class who meet
federal financial eligibility and who are placed in authorized agencies
as defined in 42 U.S.C. §672(c), but provides no federal reimbursement
for children placed in the juvenile detention centers. Most of the
children in the plaintiff class are eligible for the benefits provided
by 42 U.S.C. §620 et seq. and §671 et seq.
199. Plaintiff class members are entitled to
the benefits of these statutes but because defendants have failed
to develop a coordinated plan of services for these children, as
required by federal law, these children are being denied such benefits.
200. Many children are locked up on minor charges
such as breach of peace because families cannot be located or do
not want to take them home. As a result, they become abandoned.
Defendants fail, however, to file "uncared for" petitions, contact
or notify DCF or arrange for children placed in alternative facilities.
201. When DCF is notified, tension between the
two state agencies as to which has responsibility for the child
often results.
202. DCF social workers rarely visit DCF children
being kept in juvenile detention.
203. The centers are often used to warehouse
children DCF cannot place or to hold children until DCF workers
eventually explore placement.
204. Although many children go from detention
centers, upon sentencing, to DCF facilities and DCF-licensed facilities,
there is a serious lack of coordination between the detention centers
and such facilities. Children often miss appointments with state
authorities due to this lack of coordination and the state's failure
to provide transportation.
205. Frequently, the Juvenile Court must order
DCF workers to remove children in order to get action. Many times,
attorneys, subsequently appointed to represent detained children,
must file neglected or uncared for petitions with DCF in order to
obtain action for their clients.
206. Defendants have failed to develop and implement
a sufficient number of less secure, community-based alternative
placements for plaintiffs and members of their class who are inappropriately
confined at the detention centers.
207. On many occasions, the few shelters and
mental health residential facilities which will take children in
the juvenile justice system do not have adequate space to accommodate
those appropriate for their services, despite the availability of
federal funds for many of these facilities.
208. In addition, DCF facilities such as Riverview,
Altobello and the State Receiving Home are not equipped to help
these children on any long-term basis.
209. The failure to develop appropriate alternatives
causes, in part, a disproportionate representation of minority youth
confined in secure facilities. While the arrested juvenile population
is approximately 10% African American and 6% Latino, the detention
population is approximately 50% African American and 30% Latino.
Minority children are at least four times more likely to be detained
than white children.
210. According to 1988-89 statistics from the
Juvenile Department, while 40% African American and 20% Latino children
were committed for DCF placement, 76% of the Long Lane population
was minority, while only 40% of the more specialized and less restrictive
placements were filled by minority children.
211. While the Judicial Department, under defendant
Ment's supervision, has developed a successful Alternative Incarceration
Program (AIP) servicing 3,500 adult criminal offenders, placing
80% in alternative sentencing arrangements, the defendants have
failed to establish a similar system for juveniles.
212. Although defendant Ment acknowledged the
need for an alternative sanctions program for juveniles, defendant
Weicker failed to include such requests in the biennial budget submitted
to the legislature and no such program has been implemented.
213. The State of Connecticut receives federal
funding pursuant to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act. Defendants fail to fulfill the requirements of the Act by failing
to file annual updates to the plan and annual evaluations of their
programs, by failing to administer their programs equitably on the
basis of gender, race, and mentally, emotionally, or physically
handicapping conditions, and by failing to provide adequate assistance
designed to strengthen the families of delinquent youth.
214. Defendants have had long standing knowledge
of the problems described above.
215. Innumerable studies and task force reports
by and for the defendants include: "Report on the Juvenile Justice
System in Connecticut," (October, 1983); "Delinquency in Connecticut,
the Changing Juvenile Court," (May, 1984); "Tracking Juvenile Offenders
into the Adult Criminal Justice System," (1985); "Juvenile Justice
in Connecticut," (January, 1989); "Three Model Youth Programs: A
Federally Sponsored State Initiative," (July, 1992); "Alternative
Sanctions in the Superior Court/Juvenile Matters," (March, 1993).
216. These studies and reports as well as others
have acknowledged the multi-faceted nature of the problems and have
recommended various steps which defendants must take to ensure that
children under their care receive the protection, care, and treatment
to which they are lawfully entitled. Defendants have failed to implement
the recommendations.
217. The knowing actions and inactions of the
defendants as herein set forth, are causing the plaintiff children
to suffer and continue to suffer irreparable injury for which they
have no adequate remedy at law.
218. Paragraphs one through two hundred and
seventeen are incorporated herein by reference the same as though
pleaded in full.
219. Defendants' failure to provide adequate
living conditions, recreational opportunities, staffing, rehabilitative
treatment, classification, evaluation and placement violates plaintiffs'
rights and the rights of class members to personal safety and non-
punitive conditions of confinement and their right to treatment
in the least restrictive setting and under the least restrictive
conditions as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution.
220. Paragraphs one through two hundred and
nineteen are incorporated herein by reference the same as though
pleaded in full.
221. Defendants have knowingly failed to adopt
and implement policies and protocols to provide adequate medical
and mental health care to plaintiffs and those they seek to represent,
in violation of their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
222. Paragraphs one through two hundred and
twenty-one are incorporated herein by reference the same as though
pleaded in full.
223. Defendants' failure to provide handicapped
and disabled students with a free and appropriate public education
deprives plaintiffs and members of their class of their rights guaranteed
by Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401
et seq. (P.L. 94-142) and its implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R.
§§300 et seq. and by §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794.
224. Defendants' refusal and failure to provide,
or ensure the provision of free and appropriate public educational
services, including special education services to children detained
in the juvenile detention facilities, while providing such services
to other children residing in the community, violates the rights
of plaintiffs and members of their class under the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
225. Paragraphs one through two hundred and
twenty-four are incorporated herein by reference the same as though
pleaded in full.
226. Defendants' interference with plaintiffs'
access to their families and attorneys violates plaintiffs' rights
as guaranteed by the First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to
the United States Constitution.
227. Paragraphs one through two hundred twenty-six
are incorporated herein by reference the same as though pleaded
in full.
228. Defendants have failed to protect plaintiffs
from harm while in state custody in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
229. Paragraphs one through two hundred twenty-eight
are incorporated herein by reference the same as though pleaded
in full.
230. Defendants' failure to develop annual updates
to its plan as required under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act, to treat plaintiffs and those they seek to represent
equitably on the basis of gender, race, and mentally, emotionally
or physically handicapping conditions, and to provide adequate assistance
designed to strengthen the families of delinquent youth, as required
by the Act, violates the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Act, 42 U.S.C. §5633.
231. Paragraphs one through two hundred thirty
are incorporated herein by reference the same as though pleaded
in full.
232. Defendants' failure to develop and implement
an adequate plan for the provision of appropriate services for those
children entitled to benefits under 42 U.S.C. §620 et seq. and 671
et seq. and who are inappropriately incarcerated in juvenile detention
centers because of the lack of alternative plans and placements,
violates these children's rights under 42 U.S.C. §620 et seq. and
671 et seq.
Wherefore, the plaintiffs respectfully request
that this Court:
1. Assume jurisdiction over this action;
2. Certify this case as a class action;
3. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction,
enjoining the defendants, their agents, and successors in office
from confining children under conditions which deprive them of:
a. adequate and safe living conditions; b. adequate and timely medical
and mental health care; c. appropriate staffing; d. appropriate
educational opportunities; e. adequate recreation; f. sufficient
visitation and phone calls; g. appropriate classification and disciplinary
procedures; h. system of alternative and less restrictive placements;
4. Enter a declaratory judgment declaring that
the conditions of confinement of plaintiffs and members of their
class are violative of their rights as guaranteed by the First,
Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
42 U.S.C. §1983, 20 U.S.C. §§1401 et. seq., 42 U.S.C. §620 et seq.
and §671 et seq., 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794;
42 U.S.C. §5633; and 42 U.S.C. §620 et seq., and 671 et seq.
5. Award costs and attorneys' fees;
6. Grant such further and other relief as this
court deems just and proper.
Respectfully Submitted, BY: Martha Stone #ct00080
JoNel Newman #ct02179 Connecticut Civil Liberties Union Foundation
32 Grand Street Hartford, CT 06106 Marcia Robinson Lowry ACLU Children's
Rights Project 132 West 43rd Street New York, NY 10036 Attorneys
for Plaintiffs
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has
been mailed, postage prepaid to Stephen O'Neill, Steven Strom, John
R. Whelan, Sharon M. Hartley, Assistant Attorney Generals, MacKenzie
Hall, 110 Sherman Street, Hartford, CT 06105; Jeffrey J. Mirman,
Levy and Droney, 74 Batterson Park Road, Farmington, CT 06034; Corporation
Counsel's Office, 550 Main Street, Hartford, CT 06103; and Corporation
Counsel's Office, 200 Orange Street, New Haven, CT 06510 this day
of October, 1993. Martha Stone
|
