Juvenile detention center lawsuits are moving through courts in more than a dozen states, brought by thousands of adults who say they were sexually, physically, or emotionally abused as children in state and county custody. The largest is a tentative $4 billion settlement in Los Angeles County covering more than 6,800 claims 1, but active litigation also stretches across Maryland, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oregon, Washington, Texas, and others. Whether you can file depends almost entirely on where the abuse happened and when, because recent state law changes have reopened deadlines that used to bar these cases outright.
Where the Major Lawsuits Are Happening
The current wave is concentrated in a handful of states that either lifted their statutes of limitations or ran significant institutional facilities with long histories of complaints.
Los Angeles County, California
In April 2025, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a tentative $4 billion settlement resolving more than 6,800 claims of sexual abuse in county-run juvenile halls, foster homes, and the now-closed MacLaren Children’s Center. The claims date back to 1959, with most alleging abuse in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. It is the costliest settlement in county history, and the county plans to finance it through reserve funds, municipal bonds, and budget cuts, with payments continuing through fiscal year 2050-51.
The settlement was made possible by California’s AB 218, a 2019 law that temporarily lifted the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims against public entities. In October 2025, the county announced a separate tentative settlement of up to $828 million covering an additional 414 claimants who filed under the same law.
Maryland
Maryland’s 2023 Child Victims Act lifted the state’s 20-year filing deadline for sexual abuse claims against institutions that concealed abuse. By early 2025, roughly 5,000 potential claimants had come forward, represented by nearly two dozen firms. Over 90 percent of the plaintiffs are African American, and allegations reach back to the 1960s. Named facilities include the Charles H. Hickey Jr. School, where more than 500 people filed claims, and the Montrose juvenile training facility.
As of January 2026, no active settlement negotiations were underway despite more than 3,800 filed lawsuits and estimated state exposure exceeding $2.7 billion.
New Jersey
More than 350 people filed lawsuits across roughly 10 New Jersey counties alleging abuse in juvenile detention between 1982 and 2024. In June 2025, the state Supreme Court consolidated all claims into a single Multicounty Litigation proceeding in Middlesex County. The litigation centers on the New Jersey Training School at Jamesburg, the state’s largest juvenile lockup, which remains open despite pledges by two governors to close it. Survivors described sexual assault, staff threatening family members to keep victims quiet, and staff bribing children in addiction treatment with drugs in exchange for sexual activity.
New Hampshire
The Sununu Youth Services Center, formerly the Youth Development Center, has produced one of the largest individual verdicts in this category. In May 2024, a jury awarded $38 million to David Meehan, who alleged he was sexually abused at the facility. The state is fighting to reduce that award to $475,000 under a sovereign immunity theory that treats the systemic mismanagement of the facility as a single “incident.” More than 1,100 additional lawsuits are on hold pending the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s ruling.
In a separate case, the state settled with Michael Gilpatrick for $10 million in March 2025 over abuse he suffered in the 1990s, four times the maximum available through the state’s standard settlement fund.
Oregon
In March 2025, 10 men filed a $51 million lawsuit against the State of Oregon and the Oregon Youth Authority, alleging sexual abuse at the MacLaren Youth Correctional Facility in Woodburn. The suit named Dr. Gary Edwards, the facility’s former chief medical officer, and alleged five other perpetrators and potentially thousands of additional victims. A related review found that the agency’s former chief of investigations had failed to review an estimated 3,000 abuse complaints over seven years, and Governor Tina Kotek fired the agency’s director.
Washington
Pierce County has paid roughly $9.7 million to settle claims of abuse at Remann Hall, covering incidents from the 1970s through the early 2000s. More than 100 additional related cases remained filed with the county as of mid-2026. The Green Hill School had paid over $4.4 million to settle at least 23 claims as of August 2024, and the Naselle Youth Camp paid a combined $805,000 to four survivors in 2021.
How Juvenile Abuse Lawsuits Are Structured
These cases are almost always filed as individual claims rather than class actions. A traditional class action requires that every group member suffered essentially the same harm, and sexual abuse cases don’t fit: each survivor’s perpetrators, injuries, and circumstances differ. Instead, attorneys file many individual lawsuits and ask a court to consolidate them before a single judge for shared discovery and expert testimony. Each case keeps its own valuation based on specific facts, but plaintiffs share resources and apply collective pressure.
Suing a government-run facility means navigating sovereign immunity, the doctrine that governments cannot be sued without consent. States have waived that immunity to varying degrees through tort claims acts, which typically allow negligence suits but impose damages caps. Federal civil rights claims under Section 1983 can be brought against individual officials, but qualified immunity shields officials unless they violated “clearly established” constitutional rights. Private entities running facilities on behalf of the state don’t enjoy sovereign immunity, though they may still count as state actors for civil rights purposes.
Most lawsuits allege that facilities failed to comply with the federal Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, which mandates protections against sexual abuse in correctional institutions. Claimants generally do not need physical evidence or contemporaneous reports to pursue a case, and most attorneys in this area work on contingency, meaning survivors pay nothing upfront.
Whether You Can Still File
The filing deadline is the single biggest factor in whether a case can move forward. Historically, many survivors were barred long before they were psychologically ready to come forward. That has changed sharply.
Several states have eliminated filing deadlines entirely for certain child abuse claims, including Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Others created extended windows:
- California allows claims up to 22 years after a victim’s 18th birthday or five years from discovery. A 2023 law, AB 452, eliminated any statute of limitations for sexual abuse suffered as a minor when the abuse occurred after January 1, 2024.
- New Jersey allows 37 years from the age of majority for abuse occurring after December 2019.
- Pennsylvania allows 37 years from age 18.
Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, and Utah have enacted retroactive provisions reviving previously time-barred claims. Florida and Illinois use grandfathering clauses that protect actions not already expired by specific dates.
Legislative Pushback
Some legislatures are moving the other way. Maryland’s House Bill 1378, signed by Governor Wes Moore on April 22, 2025, and effective June 1, 2025, cut the damages cap for sex abuse claims against government entities from $890,000 per occurrence to $400,000, and for private institutions from $1.5 million to $700,000. Survivors had only until May 31, 2025, to file under the higher caps. Plaintiff attorneys announced plans to challenge the law as unconstitutional.
In California, public agencies and school districts have pushed for reforms to AB 218, including a state-funded compensation fund, payout and attorney fee caps, and higher standards of proof. A prior reform effort, SB 577, passed the state Senate but stalled in the Assembly. The Youth Law Center warned that the proposed changes would create a “two-tiered system of justice” that silences survivors harmed in state care while leaving intact the rights of those abused elsewhere.
What Settlements Have Actually Paid
Compensation ranges enormously depending on jurisdiction, severity of abuse, and statutory caps.
- Los Angeles County: $4 billion across more than 11,000 claims, plus a separate $828 million settlement for 414 additional claims. Individual awards are still pending.
- New Hampshire (Sununu Youth Services Center): a $38 million jury verdict for a single survivor in May 2024, currently on appeal, and a separate $10 million settlement in March 2025.
- Washington (Remann Hall): approximately $9.7 million across 14 settled claims as of mid-2026, with recent individual payouts ranging from $250,000 to $680,000.
- Washington (Green Hill School): over $4.4 million across at least 23 claims as of August 2024.
- Washington (Naselle Youth Camp): $805,000 total in 2021, split among four survivors.
- Pennsylvania (Lancaster County): $400,000 in 2020 to settle a claim involving a guard convicted of assaulting girls.
Individual payouts turn on the severity and duration of the abuse, the age of the victim, documented psychological harm such as PTSD or depression, whether the institution ignored complaints or actively concealed abuse, and the jurisdiction’s statutory damages caps. Maryland’s new law caps government payouts at $400,000 per claimant regardless of how many incidents occurred; the pre-June 2025 cap was $890,000 per occurrence.
The LA County Fraud Investigation
Anyone filing a claim tied to the Los Angeles settlement should understand what has happened since April 2025. In November 2025, LA County District Attorney Nathan Hochman opened a criminal investigation after reports surfaced that some plaintiffs had never been in county custody and that recruiters had paid individuals to fabricate sexual abuse claims. The investigation focused on the Downtown LA Law Group, which represented roughly 2,700 claimants. The firm denied paying clients to sue.
By January 2026, the county had deposited $396.4 million into a settlement trust but agreed to pause all individual victim payments. County Counsel Dawyn Harrison acknowledged that AB 218 had “unfortunately opened the door to fraudulent claims and exploitation at unprecedented dollar amounts.” In June 2026, Hochman alleged that as many as four out of five of the more than 11,000 claims could be fraudulent, citing reports that nine individuals had admitted being paid small amounts of cash to file fabricated lawsuits. On June 15, 2026, Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff denied the DA’s request to formally intervene in the settlement but ordered additional filings.
Plaintiff attorneys pushed back on the delays. Raymond Boucher, liaison counsel for the plaintiffs, told the court that “some of my clients will die before they get paid.” Attorneys warned the delays could cause the settlement agreement to collapse entirely and were costing victims an estimated $30 million in interest on high-interest loans taken against expected payouts.
In June 2026, the State Bar of California also charged three Downtown LA Law Group attorneys with signing up clients in states where they were not licensed. Founding partner Farid Yaghoubtil faced 16 counts, founding partner Daniel Azizi faced 11, and litigation attorney Igor Fradkin faced four. Former founding partner Salar Hendizadeh had been charged in March with similar allegations. The firm denied wrongdoing and said it was cooperating.
The county responded with enhanced fraud screening. Every plaintiff must provide a multi-page factual summary under penalty of perjury. Suspected fraudulent claims require a substantiated showing before an independent allocator, who can demand additional evidence. Claims brought by the Downtown LA Law Group face an extra layer of review, potentially including interviews. Any claimant found to have submitted a fraudulent claim receives no payment and may be removed from the settlement entirely. The county reserved the right to refer attorneys suspected of inducing false claims to the State Bar for discipline.
For legitimate survivors, the practical takeaway is that documentation matters more than ever: records placing you in the facility, the names of staff and other residents, and any contemporaneous complaints or medical records will carry weight when an independent allocator is deciding whether your claim clears the enhanced review.