Planned Parenthood v. Promesa
Plaintiffs’ lawsuit alleged that Promesa Behavioral Health group home staff engaged in unlawful practices, including denying foster youth access to reproductive health care services, forcing youth to waive their right to confidential medical care, confiscating foster youths’ contraceptives, and forcing foster youth to allow Promesa staff into youths’ medical exam rooms during gynecological appointments. Plaintiffs alleged that Promesa’s actions violated the youths’ right to privacy under California law, as well as numerous state statutes.
FILE NO., COURT AND DATE FILED
16 CEC G00543 (California Superior Court Fresno County, 2016)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Rebecca Gudeman, Leecia Welch, Poonam Juneja
National Center for Youth Law
405 14th Street, 15th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
Fax: (510) 835-8099
Keker & Van Nest LLP
Michelle S. Ybarra, Julia Allen
633 Battery St
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
HISTORY AND STATUS
On February 19, 2016, Plaintiffs California Planned Parenthood Education Fund (CPPEF) and three former foster youth filed suit against Promesa Behavioral Health, an operator of eight group homes in Fresno and Madera counties. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that Promesa’s actions violated California law by denying foster youth the reproductive and sexual health care services and information to which they are legally entitled. Plaintiffs brought claims for violation of the California Constitution’s privacy clause, various California statutes protecting the rights of foster youth to reproductive health care, and the Bane Act. Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to add Planned Parenthood Mar Monte and two current foster youth as additional plaintiffs.
On June 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs’ motion alleged that Promesa’s practices of denying foster youth access to reproductive health care services and confiscating foster youth’s contraceptives violated their right to privacy as guaranteed by California’s Constitution, violated their statutory rights, and placed them at risk of serious harm.
Prior to a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion, the parties entered into settlement discussions. In September 2016, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit.