Casa Pacifica Staff, Supporters Vow to Fight for Facility

CAMARILLO —  There was frustration and some anger, but the people who operate or have children at Casa Pacifica were upbeat and determined Friday to keep the facility open, despite two critical reviews, one that may result in revocation of its license to care for abused and neglected children.

“This is not a way station on the way to nowhere, like a lot of other places are,” said Pat Pope, a Casa Pacifica clinician. “It is not a place to warehouse children; it’s a place where children have an opportunity to be healed. These were children that were considered throwaways and have absolutely changed since being here.”

The state Department of Social Services, stopping short of asking a court to close the shelter, notified officials Thursday that it recommended license revocation after an exhaustive seven-month investigation, citing supervision and health and safety violations. And only the day before, the Ventura County Grand Jury issued a report that concluded the facility is hindered by problems in funding, design and regulations, calling it “a recipe for disaster.”

“All through this I’ve been stunned by the idea that the state can even conceive of closing this facility,” Pope said. “I’m shocked and I don’t quite understand where the forces are that are behind such a thing.”

Casa Pacifica’s executive director, Steve Elson, discussed the grand jury report and the state’s decision with staff members Wednesday, so they would know what to expect.

The staff and volunteers work at Casa Pacifica because they care about children and “want to be the good guys,” Elson said Friday. “This sort of scrutiny and these kinds of accusations don’t make them feel like they’re good guys any more--it’s hard on them.”

*

Some private donors also vowed to continue their support.

“Everything that the state mentioned was in the process of being corrected,” said Carolyn Huntzinger, who became involved with Casa Pacifica six years ago. “And then we got reprimanded unfairly . . . But people who know us will have a reaffirmed commitment.”

But even as supporters vowed to continue defending the facility, critics continued their assault.

Some Ventura County foster parents, who have recently accused Casa Pacifica of over-medicating and institutionalizing children, say the state didn’t come down hard enough.

“I wouldn’t even give them probation,” said Carolyn Gyurkovitz, a Thousand Oaks foster parent for 12 years. “I wouldn’t get that type of a chance as a foster parent if I were in violation.”

The Ventura County Foster Parent Assn. met with Casa Pacifica officials May 23 to try to iron out differences, Gyurkovitz said.

“It was a waste of two hours,” she said. “I feel there’s not a place for Casa Pacifica in Ventura County.”

“I’ve picked up several kids from Casa,” she said. “And the infants come out star-gazed from being institutionalized.”

Others agree with Gyurkovitz, saying the facility should be shut down immediately and the children placed in foster homes.

“I used to say I thought Casa had a place in the county, but I don’t feel that way anymore,” said Susan Miller, a Camarillo foster parent for 16 years.

“I’m really discouraged with Casa Pacifica and their management,” Miller said. “Everyone’s trying to use the state as a scapegoat, saying that they’re picking on them. But the public needs to look at how Casa did this to themselves--the state did not do this to them.”

*

The criticism is frustrating for Casa Pacifica employees.

“It doesn’t feel good,” said Cheryl Forkin, a teacher’s aide. “We work a lot of hours and care about these kids. We’re concerned about their well-being and safety . . . These reports are not fair and very upsetting.”

Others wonder about the state’s motive.

“It’s not a problem if licensing wants to suggest improvements, we’re always looking for fresh views--as long as it’s done with a positive look to the future and not as a scapegoat,” said Bruce Oliver, a Casa Pacifica teacher.

The state cited 63 citations issued against the facility since it opened in July 1994 as its reason for license revocation--a process that will allow the shelter time to correct its problems. The state will wait for Casa Pacifica to file a legal document disputing the license revocation. Then the shelter must file a correction plan and possibly enter into a negotiated settlement and be placed on probation.

But parents of children in the residential treatment program insist that Casa Pacifica is where the children should be.

“Casa gave us a chance at sanity as a family,” said Camille Torgeson, of Camarillo, whose 15-year-old daughter has been in the facility’s residential treatment program for two years. “If they shut them down, I would definitely go to war. There’s no reason to shut them down. Modify, yes, but they’ve admitted all along that they’re a work in progress.”

Instead, the state should work with Casa Pacifica to gain financial support for more staff, Torgeson said, adding that the facility will always have incident reports because of the behavioral problems of the children.

“God forbid they ever put any of these children in foster homes; they wouldn’t be able to handle them,” said Torgeson, explaining how her daughter was abused in a foster home in Los Angeles County for three years before she adopted her.

“She was totally uncontrollable because of the abuse she’d been through,” Torgeson said. “Without Casa, this whole family would have fallen apart.”

*

Her daughter’s violent behavior placed the family in jeopardy, forcing her to consider reversing the adoption.

“They’ve taken her to where she is pretty much getting back to being a teenager,” she said.

After her daughter read a newspaper article Friday about the state’s decision on Casa Pacifica, she said, “If Casa Pacifica closed and I had to go somewhere else, I’d have to start all over again. They know me here and have helped me a lot. And what about the little kids here and the others who need help and the staff, because where would everyone go?”

Asking the same question, many children criticized the state’s decision because “they don’t live here and don’t see what goes on.” They talked freely of their out-of-control behaviors, complained that staff was “strict,” but added that Casa has helped them to be responsible.

“It’s got to be upsetting for the kids and anxiety producing,” Elson said. “Many of them see Casa Pacifica as their home--and to have their home under attack so publicly the way it has been is frightening to them.”