Since the ACLU of Colorado publicly demanded that the Department of Human Services (DHS) put an end to solitary confinement of children at El Pueblo Boys and Girls Ranch, several children have come forward to tell us about their experiences in so-called “reflection cottages” at El Pueblo.

In these “reflection cottages,” children are secluded, in violation of DHS regulations, in small concrete rooms with no other feature than a concrete slab for a bed. Children can leave the room only with permission and for short periods of time to use the bathroom and shower. Children in solitary confinement at El Pueblo are denied the opportunity to go to school, to speak with other kids, and to spend time outdoors.

These are a few of their stories. Names have been withheld to protect their identities.

Child One

Child One is 13 years old. He is in state custody after having suffered severe physical and emotional abuse by his parents. He has been diagnosed with serious mental disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder and reactive attachment disorder.

When he arrived at El Pueblo last summer, he was immediately taken to a “reflection cottage,” where he spent three weeks in solitary confinement.

During that time, he spent virtually the entire time sitting on a concrete slab, bored and angry. He was given no homework and ate all of his meals alone. While in seclusion, he could not stop his mind from replaying the trauma of his childhood.

“It was hard being in there. It stressed me out a lot. It reminded me of when I was six and with my parents. They would lock me in the basement or a closet. First they would lock me, and then they would take me out to beat me, then lock me back until I was healed. One time I was in the closet for six or seven days. My mother would sneak me bread and cheese. That is what I thought about in the reflection cottage.”

Child Two

Child Two is a developmentally disabled 16-year-old boy with an IQ of 60. When he was 14 years old, he was placed at El Pueblo by the Department of Human Services. El Pueblo immediately put him in solitary confinement and left him there for over a month. During that time, he did not go to school, he did not go outdoors, and he became enraged in his solitude.

“They didn’t let me go to school at all. I stayed in my room and slept. There was nothing in my room besides concrete.”

His mom became worried that solitary confinement was hurting her child after he called her and said, “Mom, I’m gonna go crazy. I gotta get out of this room.”

Frequently, the child would ask permission to go to the bathroom and then refuse to go back to the room. Insistent on isolation, El Pueblo staff would restrain the child and forcibly place him in his room.

His mom remembers, “The more he stayed locked in there, the more he acted out.” She went to the facility to give her son comfort, but El Pueblo refused to let her see him while he was held in solitary confinement.

Child Three

Child Three has suffered a long history of sexual and physical abuse. When she was 16 years old, she was placed at El Pueblo by the Department of Human Services.

She suffers from diabetes and has occasionally refused to take her medication. When she refused her medication at El Pueblo, she reports that they put her in solitary confinement for over a month. During that time, she did not go to school and was given no school work. She sat in her concrete room.

“I got frustrated. I felt like nobody was listening. Nobody was there to help. I just kind of stood there all day and stared at a brick wall and thought about a time when I was ten and my dad punished me by locking me in my room when I told the truth – that my grandfather had sexually abused me.”

Child Three is now doing well at a residential treatment facility that does not place children in solitary confinement.

DHS rules clearly prohibit seclusion of children “except in emergency situations and only after all less restrictive alternatives have been exhausted.” The rules also specify that seclusion should not exceed two hours except in the most extraordinary cases and should end when the emergency passes. Clearly El Pueblo routinely violates these DHS rules designed to protect the emotional and physical health of children.

The ACLU sent a letter last week to DHS Executive Director Reggie Bicha calling on the department to either bring El Pueblo into full compliance with state regulations or rescind the facility’s license to operate as a residential child care facility. The letter requests a response by Monday, April 22.

more on this case

April 11, 2013

CIVIL LIBERTIES GROUPS ASK COLORADO SUPREME COURT TO HEAR APPEAL OF SCHOOL VOUCHER CASE

Three civil liberties organizations today asked the Colorado Supreme Court to strike down a Douglas County voucher program that provides public education funds to private religious schools.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition today with Colorado’s high court, asking it to accept the case and overturn a Colorado Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the program.

The groups say that the voucher plan illegally diverts taxpayer money to religious schools in violation of the Colorado Constitution.

“The Colorado Constitution is very clear on this question: Public funds may not subsidize religious institutions,” said Alex J. Luchenitser, associate legal director of Americans United. “We’re urging the Colorado Supreme Court to accept this case and strike down this misguided scheme.”

The so-called “Choice Scholarship Pilot Program” offered tuition vouchers worth $4,575 to 500 students to spend at religious and other private schools. For the purposes of obtaining the state per-pupil educational funds, Douglas County created a public charter school, which exists only on paper, and enrolled students in the sham school.

In reality, students were set to attend one of 23 district-approved “Private School Partners,” and the voucher money would be paid to the schools. As of the filing of the lawsuit, 18 of the 23 approved Private School Partners were religious.

“Taxpayers in Colorado should not be compelled to subsidize religious education,” said ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein.

“Parents may, of course, decide to send their children to religious schools, but the state constitution forbids the use of public funds to pay for such religious education,” added Heather L. Weaver, staff attorney for the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “We are hopeful that the Colorado Supreme Court will accept this case and vindicate the religious liberty right of taxpayers to ensure that public funds do not support religious institutions.”

A lower court struck down the plan, but the court of appeals overturned that decision in February in a 2-1 ruling.

The lawsuit, LaRue v. Colorado Board of Education, argues that the voucher plan violates the Colorado Constitution’s ban on the use of public funds for religious schools, as well as state laws that require educational funds to pay for public education and remain under government control.

“This case raises issues important to the constitutionally mandated public-education system in Colorado, which is facing serious financial difficulties,” said attorney Matthew J. Douglas of the Denver office of the international law firm Arnold & Porter LLP, who argued the appeal. “If the court of appeals' decision stands, the result could be widespread public funding of religious education throughout the state, as other school districts would be able to enact voucher programs similar to Douglas County’s. We believe the Colorado Supreme Court should weigh in on this important issue and enforce the Colorado Constitution’s clear prohibition of such funding."

The plaintiffs are represented by Douglas, Timothy R. Macdonald, and Michelle K. Albert of Arnold & Porter LLP; Luchenitser and Ayesha N. Khan of Americans United; Weaver and Daniel Mach of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief; and Silverstein and Sara Rich of the ACLU of Colorado.

ACLU wins dismissal of criminal charges wrongfully filed against filmmaker who attempted to tape Douglas County School Board Meeting

DENVER - Douglas County prosecutors dropped criminal charges today against ACLU client Brian Malone, a documentary filmmaker who was charged with “disrupting a lawful assembly” when he attempted to videotape a Douglas County School District (DCSD) meeting last summer.

“This decision reinforces that access to public meetings for the media and general public is a fundamental right that should never be criminalized,” said ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein.

Mr. Malone was ejected from a DCSD meeting on August 7, 2012, after he placed a video camera tripod in a location that allowed him to capture the faces of the individuals making presentations to the board – the same location where he had been allowed to videotape during several meetings over the previous three months. After a security official objected to the placement of the camera, Malone was removed from the meeting, issued a citation, and told that he could no longer attend any future school board meetings.

The school district lifted its order prohibiting Malone from attending meetings following a letter sent by the ACLU of Colorado on Malone’s behalf. Malone was defended in the criminal case by ACLU cooperating attorneys Daniel Recht, of Recht and Kornfeld, and Steve Zansberg, of Levine, Sullivan, Koch, &Schulz.

“Brian is a filmmaker whose only goal was to capture the dealings of a publicly-elected body so that they could be better known by the public,” said Recht, “They had no right to remove him and definitely no right to charge him with a crime.”

Prosecutors dropped the charges before the Douglas County court was able to rule on a motion to dismiss filed by ACLU attorneys earlier this week. In the motion, Malone’s attorneys argued that the prosecution could not prove that his conduct caused a significant disruption and also that the DCSD’s restrictions on Malone’s newsgathering activities were “overbroad and unjustified restrictions on First Amendment-protected conduct.”

According to a report by Our Colorado News, since 2007, the Douglas County School Board has more than doubled its use of secretive “executive sessions” and dramatically limited the amount of time it spends in public session. “Given these developments,” Zansberg said, “it is particularly important that journalists like Malone not be prevented from reporting on the business and conduct of the board, including the faces of the public when they do have the rare opportunity to address board members.”

more on this case