Judge Sets Hearing April 10 in Suit to Keep Camarillo State Open

A Superior Court judge Friday set an April 10 hearing for arguments in a lawsuit aimed at halting the closure of Camarillo State Hospital, but not before warning attorneys for the state to steer clear of “trashing” the parents who brought the legal challenge.

In setting the court date, Judge Diane Wayne said she did not see an immediate need to grant a request for a court order blocking the closure and the transfer of patients to other facilities, since that process isn’t expected to start until later next month.

But Wayne cautioned attorneys representing the state Department of Developmental Services to simply argue the facts in the lawsuit, filed earlier this week in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of family members of Camarillo State patients.

“Counsel, you won’t help yourself by trying to trash the parents,” Wayne told Deputy Atty. Gen. Laurie R. Pearlman, who is representing the state agency. “You can make your argument, but be a human being, don’t be heartless.”

Wayne was apparently reacting to language in a response filed Friday by the state agency to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit--brought by the Greenline Parents Group and Family and Advocates of the Mentally Ill--alleges that the closure of the state hospital would violate state law and do irreparable harm to the institution’s nearly 700 mentally ill and developmentally disabled clients.

The response, however, counters those arguments point by point, concluding that the parent groups “present only some baseless speculation, but fail to present any competent evidence that anyone will be irreparably harmed by the closure.”

Furthermore, the response states that the parent groups have waited too long to bring their argument to court, and are therefore not entitled to injunctive relief.

And the document goes on to say that other parents and patients would be harmed--those who supported the closure--if the court granted an order blocking the shutdown.

Attorneys representing the state agency were surprised by the judge’s reaction and were quick to note that they never intended to demean family members of the hospital patients.

“The department has never doubted the sincerity or interest of the parents,” said Michael Mount, chief counsel for the state agency. “We understand they have concerns and are sincere in believing the facility should stay open. Obviously, we’re in a different position on that. But there is definitely no question we understand their position.”

That position, outlined in their lawsuit, alleges that the closure would violate provisions of the Welfare and Institutions Code that require the state “to prevent the dislocation of persons with developmental disabilities from their home communities.”

Moreover, the suit claims that the closure would violate the federal Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires public entities to “administer services, programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate” to people with disabilities.

The legal challenge, supported by expert opinion and the impassioned testimony of family members, seeks a temporary court order immediately halting the closure and all patient transfers until those larger issues can be explored.

“I think we’ve directed some attention toward this issue, and I’ve got a good feeling about this,” said Ronald Gold, the Calabasas attorney representing the hospital advocates. “So long as they don’t have a mass exodus between now and April 10, we’re OK.”