On July 1, the San Diego County Superior Court \u2014 whose presiding judge is required by law to appoint the commission\u2019s members \u2014 began pulling technical and monetary assistance it had been providing to the commission for years.<\/p>\n
The court has been sharing with the county the cost of liability insurance to shield the volunteer commissioners from civil lawsuits \u2014 a routine benefit for public officials. The court said it will no longer pay for that policy and will let it expire in September.<\/p>\n
Commissioners said they would resign rather than risk being sued for actions related to their public service.<\/p>\n
The court has removed commission meeting agendas, minutes and reports from its website, leaving the public without a way to follow commission activities or review its inspection reports.<\/p>\n
Commissioners worry the lack of administrative support will put them out of business.<\/p>\n
![\"San](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/SUT-L-JCC-DISPUTE-006.jpg\")
Caitlin Radigan, chair of the county Juvenile Justice Commission, and vice chair Aaron Adkins chat outside outside Juvenile Court in San Diego on Saturday, July 18, 2026. (Kristian Carreon \/ The San Diego Union-Tribune)<\/p>\n
\u201cThe issue is that the institution with the authority to continue supporting the commission has chosen not to,\u201d said Commission Chair Caitlin Radigan, who spent time in juvenile hall and in the foster care system as a youth herself, in an interview.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat decision has real consequences. Whether or not that was the intent, it puts independent oversight of the juvenile justice system at risk.\u201d<\/p>\n
The court\u00a0notified the commission of its decision to withdraw support a year ago. It said the choice came after the commission \u201csought to expand its narrow statutory activities to include broader public policy engagement, public communications and independent public statements on matters that may come before the court.\u201d<\/p>\n
The commission\u00a0ran afoul of the court by asserting during a review of its bylaws that it was an independent body, free to speak openly on youth-related matters and adopt policy positions as it sees fit.<\/p>\n
Court spokesperson Emily Cox said the commission actions prompted the court to seek an outside legal review, which\u00a0in turn said the commission is under the purview of the county administration \u2014 not the court.<\/p>\n
As such, the court will not continue its sponsorship, for fear that supporting the commission could compromise its appearance of neutrality, Cox said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe court\u2019s decision to discontinue providing administrative support was not a reflection on the JJC or the importance of its mission,\u201d Cox said by email. \u201cRather, it was driven by the court\u2019s ethical obligation to remain institutionally neutral, to ensure that governmental responsibilities are appropriately allocated and that state trial court funds are used only for authorized court purposes.\u201d<\/p>\n
Historically, the county administration had supported the commission\u2019s operations. But the court assumed sponsorship in 2014 at the county\u2019s request, according to Cox. The county and the court have shared the cost of the commission\u2019s liability insurance, she said.<\/p>\n
Now that the court is withdrawing, it was expecting county administration to resume sponsorship.\u00a0But the two agencies disagree on who state law says is responsible \u2014 and meanwhile neither is yet stepping up to support the commission.<\/p>\n