State Urges Revoking of Casa Pacifica’s License

CAMARILLO —  A state agency is seeking to revoke Casa Pacifica’s license to care for abused and neglected children, but has stopped short of asking a court to shut down the shelter, Casa Pacifica officials learned Thursday.

Recounting a litany of 63 citations issued against the facility since it opened in July 1994, the state Department of Social Services recommended the license revocation--a process that will allow the shelter time to correct its problems.

About two-thirds of the citations--including reports of unqualified staff, inappropriate disciplinary measures and inadequate staff supervision--have occurred since the state launched its investigation in October, prompted by a 9-year-old boy’s sexual assault on a toddler.

“The fact of the matter is, kids are entrusted to the facility, and we expect them to deal with them safely,” said Dave Dodds, deputy director of the state’s community care licensing division. “We don’t believe Casa Pacifica has been sitting on their hands. We believe they are concerned and will help us reach a favorable outcome.”

Casa Pacifica officials say they are prepared to work with the state and have already started to correct some problems.

“We certainly recognize that keeping children safe is our paramount responsibility,” Executive Director Steve Elson said. “We’re committed to doing everything we have to do to provide a safe environment.”

The county’s acting social services chief, Barbara Fitzgerald, said her agency would work with the shelter through the correction process. “This gives us the opportunity to develop a long-term strategy with the state,” she said.

Others argued that state officials came down too hard on the facility--developed through 10 years of community fund-raising and county prodding.

The state licensing agency has “tunnel vision with no flexibility” and is applying regulations designed in 1960 for six-bed group homes to a facility that is much different, said an angry state Sen. Cathie Wright (R-Simi Valley).

“I’m going to force and push to do whatever I can through legislation to see to it that Casa Pacifica and any other facility that tries to do what they’re doing is accepted and understood and licensed accordingly,” she said Thursday.

In the extreme, state officials could have sought a temporary suspension order and removed children immediately from the emergency shelter and residential treatment program.

Instead, the state will wait for Casa Pacifica to file a legal document disputing the license revocation. Then the shelter must file a correction plan and possibly enter into a negotiated settlement.

At that point, Casa Pacifica will be placed on probation with additional requirements, which could include recommendations from a state-assembled review team.

That team, which spent three days earlier this month at the shelter, found no evidence that children are in any danger, but recommended that staff members receive improved training.

“I’m puzzled they feel this is a necessary step given the recent progress we’ve made and the review team’s recommendations,” Elson said. “I don’t understand why it is necessary to force Casa Pacifica to do things we’ve already said we are ready to do or have implemented. I’ve wanted them to skip the formal accusations and enter into an agreement.”

The state served the shelter with license revocation papers one day after the Ventura County Grand Jury issued a report critical of the facility. But state and county officials say there is no connection between the two actions.

Since October, Casa Pacifica has added staff members to increase supervision, modified incident reports to include more information and adopted a one-on-one safety watch in which staffers are within arm’s reach of children who could pose a danger to themselves or others.

The facility also began specialized and more intensive staff training sessions, and installed additional outdoor lighting and radio communications to improve supervision.

Recent violations, according to the state document, include such instances as a girl who while “unsupervised in the bathroom cut herself on both thighs, chest and neck with a piece of ceramic doll.”

In another instance, three unsupervised boys were able to enter the bedroom of two girls, “where the children engaged in sexual activities, including fondling, touching, and kissing,” the report states.

However, many say these problems are not unique to Casa Pacifica, which handles many of society’s most troubled children.

In the shelter program, 328 children were placed there last year after being removed from their homes under court order because of neglect and abuse.

This program, operated through a partnership with the county, accepts up to 50 children at one time. They stay there about a month.

A second component, the 28-bed residential treatment program, serves severely emotionally disturbed children who have often spent years in foster care and will remain at Casa Pacifica an average of 7 1/2 months. Last year, 39 youngsters were placed in this program.

“Every agency that is in a position of taking in kids with serious problems faces exactly the same kinds of issues that Casa has been dealing with,” said Nina Grayson, executive director of the California Assn. of Services to Children.

“There aren’t a lot of alternatives for these children. If the state is not going to allow programs like Casa Pacifica . . . and acknowledge the kinds of incidents that will result from serving kids with serious behavior problems . . . where will they go?”

One Ventura County official says that if Casa Pacifica cannot take immediate corrective action, the county should send the children to foster care.

“I don’t see them taking the necessary steps to correct the problems they have had,” said Supervisor Frank Schillo, adding that he continually receives calls from foster care parents who say Casa Pacifica keeps children extensive amounts of time before transferring them to foster homes.

“We’ve been relying solely on Casa Pacifica and not on the foster care system,” Schillo said. “I think one of the first things we should do is start to expand that foster care system, and get more foster care parents and homes available.”

Schillo also denies that the county has what has been referred to as a “partnership” with Casa Pacifica.

The county Board of Supervisors was scheduled to reexamine its relationship with Casa Pacifica on April 15. However, the decision was delayed until after the state rendered its licensing decision.

“They have steadfastly called us a partner--a very misleading label mainly because they have not reported to us on a regular basis the incidents that have happened there,” Schillo said, referring to the October molestation incident, which he was informed about by the toddler’s grandfather one week later. “The supposed partnership is not really a partnership--it is a name only. We contract with them for services.”

However, not all county officials agree.

“We feel that Casa Pacifica is a partner to the county and a part of the entire system of care,” Fitzgerald said, adding that her department will not only be looking for how improvements can be made at Casa Pacifica, but within the entire child welfare system as well.