Patient Transfers to Proceed Before Judge’s Ruling

State officials Tuesday said they will proceed as scheduled with the wholesale transfer of Camarillo State Hospital patients, a decision that angered some parents who believe the state had promised to delay that process for their sons and daughters until at least mid-May.

With a Superior Court judge set to rule May 14 on a request to temporarily halt the closure of the mental hospital, state officials said they had agreed to consider delaying the transfer of any patient who requested it until the matter was resolved.

But with only about 30 such requests in hand, hospital officials said they concluded that putting off the transfer of such a small number of clients would actually do more harm than good.

For the benefit of those clients, officials said they decided to go forward with the moves, starting next week with dozens of patients who are set to be funneled to other facilities as part of the closure.

“In my view, it was never an absolute promise” to delay the transfer of any patient who requested it, said Michael Mount, chief counsel for the state Department of Developmental Services.

“We had agreed to consider if there was any way we could accommodate them,” he added, noting that the patients would have been left behind by friends and staff members. “The department basically determined that, with the number of changes that would have to occur in their lives in order for them to stay behind, it would actually be a great problem for them.”

But for those parents who had asked that their sons and daughters stay put until after the May 14 hearing, the decision to go forward with the transfer process amounts to a broken promise.

“We were told that if we submitted our names to the lawyer properly that those patients would be maintained at Camarillo State Hospital until the court hearing,” said Reva Shpiner, whose mentally ill daughter is scheduled to be sent to another facility at the end of the month.

“We’ve been given a raw deal--my daughter has been given a raw deal,” she said. “The parents are indirectly affected, but it’s the rights of the individual patient that are being violated.”

The controversy stems from a lawsuit filed last month in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that the planned closure of the state hospital would violate state and federal law and cause irreparable harm to Camarillo State’s 650 remaining developmentally disabled and mentally ill clients.

Filed by the Greenline Parents Group and Family and Advocates of the Mentally Ill, the lawsuit alleges that the hospital closure would violate provisions in the Welfare and Institutions Code that require the state “to prevent the dislocation of persons with developmental disabilities from their home communities.”

With the state hospital set to shut down June 30, the suit seeks a temporary court order blocking the closure and all patient transfers until a hearing can be held on those larger issues.

A hearing on the injunction request is scheduled for May 14.

In the meantime, a handful of parents seized the opportunity they say was offered by state officials to keep their sons and daughters at the mental institution until that matter is settled.

Calabasas attorney Ron Gold, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of family members, said he believes state officials have gone back on their word.

He said he plans to meet with parents today to discuss the possibility of going back to court to seek an order halting the patient transfers.

Ultimately, the transfer issue will have no effect on how long the state hospital stays open. Still unresolved are issues raised in the lawsuit about the harm that patients would endure as a result of the closure of the state hospital.

Even if patients are moved out, hospital advocates say they could always return.

“There’s something wrong here that the last ones to be considered are these poor mental patients who obviously have no rights,” said Shpiner, a 71-year-old Camarillo resident.

“They are being played like chess pieces and being moved wherever it’s convenient for the politicians,” she said. “They’re unable to speak for themselves and they’ve been given no consideration.”

Fred Alvarez is a Times staff writer and Dawn Hobbs is a correspondent.