Federal judge rules Connecticut juvenile justice system violates kids' constitutional rights.

A federal district court judge in Connecticut recently ruled that the state's neglect of mentally ill and traumatized children in its juvenile detention centers violates their Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. (Emily J. v. Weicker, No. 3:93 CV 1944 (AVC) (D. Conn. Feb. 25, 2002).)

The decision was the latest ruling in a decade-old class action civil rights lawsuit filed by several residents in Connecticut's juvenile detention centers. They claim the centers are so overcrowded and understaffed that detainees are not receiving adequate protection, care, or medical and mental health treatment.

"Basically, the three juvenile detention centers in the state are so overcrowded that there were problems with adequate staffing, provision of medical and mental health services, sanitation, protection, education, and adequate recreation," said plaintiff attorney Martha Stone of the Center for Children's Advocacy, which is affiliated with the University of Connecticut School of Law in Hartford. "Part of what I was trying to do [in filing this case] was give the lost children in the juvenile justice system a voice."

Federal judge Robert Chatigny issued the order in response to a motion Stone filed seeking enforcement of a five-year-old consent decree. Under its terms, the state's Department of Family Services agreed to improve conditions at the state's juvenile detention centers. The improvements included making changes to provide timely and adequate mental health services to residents.

In a hearing on the motion, two state juvenile court judges took the unusual step of offering testimony about their cases. The judges described several instances in which they had ordered immediate placement of a child in a state-run psychiatric hospital, only to learn that the order went unheeded because there was no bed available.

In one case, a 13-year-old boy who had tied a towel around his neck in an apparent suicide attempt had to wait seven weeks for admission to the state's psychiatric hospital. Another boy spent months hiding under his bed in a detention center before he could be moved to the hospital.

When the lawsuit was filed in 1993, it alleged that detention center residents, many of whom were "seriously emotionally disturbed," often were made to wait weeks for psychological evaluation and that treatment, even when it was ordered, was often not provided.

"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," the complaint alleged.

Chatigny's order, which was issued from the bench, confirmed that not much had changed in intervening years.

"The evidence before me is essentially conceded on the basic point, which is that we have a significant number of children confined in detention who have serious mental health needs in the constitutional sense of the word `serious,'" the judge wrote.

"It is essentially undisputed that these children are not getting timely and adequate mental health services. In fact, the evidence shows that their condition can and has worsened while they're being held in detention. That adds up to a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment due process right to timely and adequate medical care."

Chatigny ordered the parties to submit a "corrective action plan," by late April. Additional hearings on the plan are pending.

The state is reportedly facing a budget deficit of $1 billion, so finding the money to provide additional resources for detained children won't be easy. But Stone said she doesn't think the budget problems are "quite as serious as they say. They'll have to determine what their priorities are. And if they get a court order, then there will be no room for judgment."