Juvie operator fights deal

‘Kids for cash’ $17.75 million settlement would release Mericle from lawsuits

An attorney for juvenile detention center operator PA Child Care and related entities has filed a court motion opposing the proposed $17.75 million settlement of the “kids for cash” lawsuits reached with estate developer Robert Mericle.

In a legal brief filed late Wednesday, attorney Bernard Schneider cites numerous reasons why the settlement should be rejected, including claims that the agreement unfairly favors certain juvenile plaintiffs over others.

Schneider also raises concerns that some attorneys have a conflict of interest that would allow them to unfairly seek a larger cut of the settlement for juveniles they personally represented.

Attorneys are scheduled to appear at 9 a.m. today before U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo, who will review the settlement to determine if it should be approved.

The settlement, reached last month, would release Mericle from a series of class-action lawsuits filed by juveniles who allege they were incarcerated as part of a scheme to enrich former Luzerne County judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan and others. It does not resolve claims pending against others allegedly involved in the scheme.

Schneider represents PA Child Care and Western PA Child Care, the two juvenile centers at the heart of the scandal, as well as Mid Atlantic Youth Services, a related entity that provided treatment services at the two centers.

Schneider acknowledges that co-defendants in a case ordinarily have no standing to object to a settlement with one or more defendants. He argues his clients should be permitted to intervene in this instance because the Mericle settlement prejudices their defense and ability to reach a possible settlement with the plaintiffs.

The bulk of the 47-page legal brief focuses on inequities within the settlement agreement that Schneider claims would unfairly benefit some of the juveniles at the expense of others.

2,400 juveniles affected

The agreement, which is estimated to affect 2,400 juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella between Jan. 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008, sets up four funds that provide for varying payments dependent upon individual circumstances.

Juveniles who were incarcerated at PA or Western PA Child Care would receive $5,000 each; those incarcerated at other facilities would receive $1,000 while those who were adjudicated delinquent but not incarcerated would receive $500.

There also is an enhanced benefit fund that would allow juveniles to seek additional compensation based on various factors, including the number of times and length of their incarceration and degree of emotional and/or educational damage they suffered.

Schneider contends the enhancement fund is biased toward the “worst” juvenile offenders because they, by virtue of their crimes, served more time than juveniles convicted of lesser crimes.

He cites the case of a juvenile who raped his 8-year-old sister and spent a substantial amount of time at PA Child Care in Pittston Township undergoing treatment. He will get substantially more money than two other juveniles he cites who served probation.

Schneider also faults a section of the agreement that provides for an appeal process for any juvenile who disagrees with the decision of a claims committee and special master who will determine how much each claimant is entitled to receive.

The agreement states those hearings and all documents related to the hearings will be confidential. That would preclude a judge from reviewing the decisions to ensure they were just, Schneider said.

Favoritism allegation

Schneider further alleges the distribution of the money would favor juveniles who were represented by attorney Barry Dyller of Wilkes-Barre and the law firms of attorney Sol Weiss of Philadelphia and William R. Caroselli of Pittsburgh.

According to Schneider, attorneys from the Caroselli and Weiss firms are on the claims committee, which would give them inside knowledge of the number of claims made against the enhanced benefit fund.

Dyller, who was co-counsel with Weiss, also would have an unfair advantage in arguing for his clients in the claims process, Schneider contends.

Weiss could not be reached for comment. Dyller and Caroselli said the claims are without merit.

“It’s utter nonsense,” Dyller said. “He can say anything he wants … It’s just desperation on that lawyer’s part.”