The Los Angeles County Probation Department wants a judge to reject the state’s proposed takeover of its juvenile facilities and to instead grant the agency its own powers to “slash through staffing and regulatory knots” preventing it from addressing an ongoing staffing shortage, according to court filings.

The Department of Justice is seeking the appointment of a receiver who would have full control over the hiring and firing of personnel as well as force the renegotiation of contracts with the unions and be able to petition the court to waive any “law, regulation, or contractual obligation” hindering its reforms.

“Among those ‘tools’ are plenary personnel authority, unlimited budget authority (despite the county’s historic current budget crisis), the ability to unilaterally build new facilities and buy goods, and freedom from state law and contracts,” wrote Robert Dugdale, the county’s attorney, in opposition to the proposal. “To say that the receiver will succeed due to novel powers never granted to current leadership is effectively to confess that all options short of a receivership have not been tried and failed. Rather than supporting a receivership, this argument supports giving current leaders ‘the tools necessary to address root causes’ if authorizing those tools is supported under the law.”

County officials, including Probation Chief Guillermo Viera Rosa, long have blamed contractual and civil service procedures for its inability to overcome what it has described as a “callout culture” within its ranks.

About 61% of the Probation Department staff assigned to Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall are now on leave or have work restrictions due to injury or other ailments, while 37% of its budgeted positions remain vacant, the department said. That means that out of 845 budgeted positions, only 205, or 24%, are filled with full-duty employees, court filings showed.

Meanwhile, the county’s efforts to replenish its forces have struggled, too, with two-thirds of new hires leaving the department within their first year.

Probation has taken “hundreds and hundreds of disciplinary actions” against employees they believe are taking advantage of the system and “barely made a dent,” Viera Rosa said earlier this year.

“I challenge you to find any other agency in which there is such a high percentage of employees not available to work, or another law enforcement agency where the behavior by employees is matched by the generosity of the civil service process,” Viera Rosa said at the time. “This is unprecedented irresponsible behavior that has led us here and, at the core of this, is really the fact that we’re having to guess who and how many people will come to work.”

The Department of Justice made the motion in July to place L.A. County’s juvenile facilities — and to an extent the entire department’s staffing — under the control of Michael Dempsey, who currently serves as the court-appointed monitor overseeing the county’s compliance with the terms of a past settlement agreement with the DOJ over juvenile hall conditions.

Though the county agreed to the settlement in 2021, it is still out of compliance with 206 of the 259 requirements for Los Padrinos in Downey or 179 of the 252 requirements for the Barry J. Nidorf Secure Youth Treatment Facility in Sylmar, according to court filings.

As examples of the county’s continued failure, Attorney General Rob Bonta has pointed to the indictment of 30 probation officers earlier this year for allowing, and even encouraging, 69 fights at Los Padrinos over a six-month period in 2023 and to a series of drug overdoses over the past two years, including a fatal overdose.

“Sadly, since this motion was filed, youth in the Juvenile Halls continue to face grave and immediate threat or actuality of harm: continued overdoses, high levels of violence, unmet medical needs, and serious habitability issues are everyday realities,” wrote Shannon Kitten, deputy attorney general, in a Sept. 5 filing.

A series of incidents that took place in the past month are listed in the court filing, but are redacted pending a request to seal that information.

The attorney general’s latest intervention comes after the county refused to close Los Padrinos despite being ordered to do so by state regulators in December.

The juvenile hall, which holds about 257 youth awaiting adjudication, has continued to operate in defiance of that order and prompted the L.A. County Public Defender’s Office to challenge it in court. There, a judge ordered the county to bring the population down to a more manageable level, something it has failed to do so far.

The attorney general’s office argues the county has had “ample opportunity” to make improvements and that those detained within the juvenile halls should not have to wait any longer for promised reforms.

“Continuing to insist on the County itself bringing the Juvenile Halls into compliance would result only in infliction of further harm on youth and further waste of taxpayer dollars,” the office argued in the initial motion. “In contrast, establishing a receivership for the Juvenile Halls, naming the Judgment’s existing Monitor — a nationally respected juvenile justice expert with a track record for reforming juvenile facilities — as Receiver, and granting the Receiver the authorities set forth in the proposed order will create a clear path for bringing the Juvenile Halls into compliance.”

Probation, however, believes the proposal will only “add layers of bureaucracy and slow the progress we have worked tirelessly to build over the past two years,” according to spokesperson Vicky Waters.

“Progress is being made, and the Department’s new executive leadership team — comprised of seasoned professionals committed to change — is laying the ground for the future of the department and prepared to see these reforms through,” Waters said.

“Imposing a receivership risks stalling momentum at a critical time, when what is most needed is stability, accountability, and support for initiatives that have been proposed or are already underway.”

The proposed receivership has garnered significant support already. A majority of the Board of Supervisors publicly has spoken in favor of it. Probation’s unions have expressed cautious optimism that a receivership could be the “reset” they need, and a group of officers suing the county over the redeployment of field officers to the juvenile hall have filed an amicus brief in support.

“The Attorney General’s motion for a receivership is a necessary response to the County’s systemic failure to hire, retain, train, and properly deploy experienced probation officers — failures that have created dangerous conditions for youth and staff alike,” attorney Arnold Peter wrote on behalf of the employees.

Asked about the receivership, a union official once again accused Supervisor Lindsey Horvath of trying to “weaken our unions and take away our jobs.”

“Supervisor Horvath initially welcomed state receivership — saying out loud what others wouldn’t: that she hoped it would allow Sacramento to destroy our union rights,” Jonathan Byrd, second vice president of the L.A. County Deputy Probation Officers Union, said in a statement. “Now that it’s clear the state can’t do that, the County is trying to do it themselves — by seeking the right to dismantle our union contracts, pushing legislation like SB 357 to eliminate our jobs, and working to repeal the very civil service laws that protect our members.”

Horvath did not respond to a request to comment sent through her spokesperson. The supervisor has called on the state to address the “employment agreements and civil service procedures that have protected the rights of those who have harmed our young people, instead of the young people themselves.”

It remains unclear exactly how the receivership would work. The attorney general’s office submitted a proposed order outlining the basics of what a receiver could do, but it said that a “detailed and comprehensive plan of action” for achieving its goals will be provided to the court within six months of the approval.

The receiver’s authority is both narrowly and broadly defined at times in the initial filings. It would have all “powers vested by law or local ordinance” in the county and its Probation Department’s Detention Service Bureau and Residential Treatment Services Bureau, but its budgetary and staffing authority would extend beyond that.

The receiver, for example, could unilaterally decide to demolish an existing juvenile hall and budget funds for building a new one.

And while the receiver will not oversee the Probation Department’s field offices — which handle traditional probation for adults and juveniles in the community — under the proposal, he or she will have power to issue “binding directives” to other bureaus and departments, including redeploying field staff, assigning Department of Mental Health personnel, and implementing diversion programs and community placements.

“The Receiver shall have the ability to assign and deploy staff to maintain staffing levels as the Receiver sees fit, including planned and emergency deployment of all Probation staff,” the proposed order said.

The county has argued that an evidentiary hearing is necessary before receivership can be approved and the attorney general’s office has countered that it “welcomes the opportunity to demonstrate” the receivership’s necessity.

The next hearing on the motion for receivership is scheduled for Oct. 10.