A judge has approved Los Angeles County’s plan to relocate more than 100 youths from Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall to other facilities, including a controversial shift that will dismantle one of the most successful institutions in the otherwise troubled juvenile system.

During his ruling, Superior Court Judge Miguel Espinoza warned county officials that if the plan did not improve the conditions at Los Padrinos, he would enforce a tentative ruling requiring the full closure of the juvenile hall.

“We are in unprecedented times here,” Espinoza said.

Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, having repeatedly failed state inspections, has been operating illegally since December. After L.A. County refused to comply with the state’s order to close, Espinoza took up the question of whether Los Padrinos should remain open while presiding over a juvenile murder case.

The county has argued that it has few alternatives left because Los Padrinos is the only facility large enough to hold the roughly 270 youths detained there, while defense attorneys — and state regulators — maintain that it is unlawful to hold youth within the facility unless it can pass a new inspection.

Espinoza, who ordered the county to develop the depopulation plan in April, said he would continue to allow Los Padrinos to stay open for now, but the juvenile hall must be able to pass an inspection from the Board of State and Community Corrections once the plan is implemented.

Los Padrinos has been in near constant turmoil since it reopened roughly two years ago. There has been daily violence, escape attempts, drug overdoses and staff misconduct, including the indictment of 30 employees who allegedly enabled — or even staged — fights among juveniles.

Under the approved plan, L.A. County will move about 17 young men, who had earned lower security placement through merit, out of Campus Kilpatrick in the Santa Monica Mountains and return them to the higher security Barry J. Nidorf Secure Youth Treatment Facility in Sylmar. Then, all of the girls in the county’s custody will move into Kilpatrick, effectively doubling or tripling the population there.

This part of the plan has faced the most backlash because Kilpatrick is considered the flagship for the “L.A. Model,” the county’s vision for “Care First” facilities with more homelike environments. Kilpatrick’s remote location raised additional concerns about the understaffed Probation Department’s ability to provide adequate transportation for court appearances, medical appointments and familial visits.

Espinoza’s approval requires L.A. County to review all of the young men currently at Kilpatrick for potential release into community programs and to develop a plan to provide transportation and assistance, such as setting up video visits, for families that may be unable to make the trip out to Kilpatrick.

Other youth will go to the Dorothy Kirby Center in Commerce, Camp Paige in La Verne or to Barry J. Nidorf, depending on their needs and placement requirements. Initially, those in custody at Camp Paige will shift to the neighboring Camp Afflerbaugh or Camp Glenn Rockey in San Dimas while the county makes much-needed repairs at Paige. Eventually, Paige will be used to house youth awaiting more permanent placement at the other camps because those delayed placements have historically led to longer stays — and a larger daily population — at Los Padrinos.

Probation Chief Guillermo Viera Rosa acknowledged during the hearing that some of the plan is not ideal, particularly the changes to Kilpatrick, but he stressed that it is the best use of the county’s resources within such a narrow timeframe. Kilpatrick is the newest facility and more likely to pass the state inspections necessary to allow it to house the girls in the county’s custody, he said.

“It really comes down to the greater good,” Viera Rosa said.

Probation will establish a similar step-down program — where youth can move to a lower security unit based on merit and behavior — within Barry J. Nidorf, he said. “The idea would be the same model would be taken to a different location,” he said.

In a statement, the Probation Department expressed confidence “in the strength of our plan and our ability to implement it responsibly and safely.”

“This plan reflects our continued commitment to balancing public safety, legal compliance and the rehabilitative needs of the young people in our care,” the statement reads. “It is key to note that the court denied an indiscriminate mass release of youth and that Los Padrinos will not be fully depopulated or closed.”

The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office did not take a stance on the Probation Department plan, and stated in a court filing that it was not qualified to make an assessment of it. During the hearing, prosecutions stated only that they opposed any plan that would release a large part of the population from Los Padrinos. Nearly 100 of the juveniles there have been accused of murder or attempted murder, prosecutors said. None of those cases have been adjudicated yet.

Espinoza’s approval of Probation’s plan came as a disappointment to those who had advocated for an alternative plan proposed by the county’s Probation Oversight Commission. Juvenile justice reform activists rallied outside the East Los Angeles Courthouse in support of that plan ahead of the hearing, though Espinoza later said he did not consider any of the communications he received from advocacy groups while making his decision.

The commission’s plan, which received the support of the L.A. County public defender, estimated the population at Los Padrinos could be reduced by 100 to 150 through a review of each youth’s original detention report for errors and completeness, by providing more training to the intake staff to ensure youth are properly placed in appropriate facilities or community programs, and by shifting girls and gender-expansive youth to Dorothy Kirby instead.

Public Defender Ricardo Garcia offered his support for the oversight commission’s plan before and after Espinoza’s ruling.

“I’m the parent of teenagers,” he said. “If I treated my boys the way that our young people are treated in the Probation system, someone would come and remove them from my home and place them in someone else’s.”

Despite the outcome, he said his office would continue to advocate for release and alternative placements tailored to the needs of each youth.

The ruling gives Viera Rosa a clear path forward and sidesteps the potential political opposition he would have faced without a court order behind him. His bosses, the Board of Supervisors, previously opposed parts of a very similar plan in February, before Espinoza’s order, and sent him back to the drawing board. Then, they ordered him to appear at the Probation Oversight Commission meeting to address the commission’s alternative plan, though he did not fully comply.

Most recently, board members accused him of taking an “end run around” them by moving forward with his plan without their approval and ordered him to appear at their June 3 meeting.

In a statement, Supervisor Kathryn Barger said the ruling “provides needed clarity,” though there is “still a great deal of work ahead.”

“Revamping our juvenile system of care requires more than relocating youth. It demands real, sustained reform,” she stated. “I expect the Probation Department to follow through with meaningful changes that prioritize safety, accountability, and the rehabilitation of the youth under their supervision.”

Supervisor Janice Hahn, who has frequently opposed Viera Rosa, said she believes Probation “can and should do more than simply shuffle young people from Los Padrinos to different probation facilities.”

“There are young people incarcerated at Los Padrinos who want to and should be transferred Pine Grove Fire Camp and young people who should be safely released on ankle monitoring,” she stated.

The Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp, a state-run camp for juvenile offenders, is a volunteer program in which youth work as fire crew members with Cal Fire. During the hearing, Viera Rosa, who previously worked for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, said he supports the program, but that young people in L.A. County’s custody are not volunteering to participate.

Espinoza’s ruling requires Probation to report back within 45 days about the potential placement of more youth into the program from L.A. County.

The county will next return to Espinoza’s court July 18 to update the judge on the status of its implementation of the plan.