Senate Backs Dependency Court Access

Courts that oversee the welfare of thousands of abused and neglected children throughout California would be open to the public for the first time under a law that won overwhelming approval from the state Senate on Wednesday.

Supporters of the measure by Sen. Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) said they hope that greater access to juvenile dependency courts will help improve conditions for more than 100,000 children in foster care.

After its 30-4 approval by the Senate, the measure goes to the Assembly, where it is expected to face continuing opposition from an association representing social workers. The social workers say that opening the courts could subject already endangered children to additional public embarrassment.

The legislation follows a trend in states such as Florida, Michigan, Minnesota and New York to open court proceedings on abused and neglected children to the public and the media.

“Historically, juvenile court proceedings have been confidential to protect an abused or neglected child from being further traumatized,” Schiff said. “Unfortunately, confidentiality laws have at times worked against the very children they were designed to protect by hiding the flaws within the system.”

Schiff held a series of hearings in which an array of children’s advocates, social service agencies, lawyers for children and media representatives argued in favor of opening the courts.

In the past, judges in dependency courts sealed records and rarely opened proceedings, even in cases where children died. Juvenile court records will remain confidential, even under the Schiff bill.

However, the legislation allows future hearings to be open to the public. Any parties to the proceedings--including children and their lawyers--may ask a judge to close a courtroom. To close the proceedings, a judge would have to find that public exposure would cause “serious harm” to a child.

“We have been representing abused kids for some time and they don’t benefit from secrecy. Parents do, social workers do and mistakes do, but children don’t benefit,” said Robert Fellmeth, director of the Children’s Advocacy Institute and a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law.

Increased openness should promote more press coverage, which in turn will help raise the profile of a largely overlooked group of children, Fellmeth argues.

“This could triple or quadruple the number of stories about what is going on in the child welfare system,” Fellmeth said. “That will really open people’s eyes and that is badly needed.”

Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Assn., said reporters have had limited access to dependency court information in the past and used the knowledge responsibly. Judges will still be able to bar cameras from courtrooms under another state law, Ewert said.

Terry Friedman, presiding judge of the Los Angeles Juvenile Court, was among the supporters of the legislation. He said the law will allow judges to balance the public’s right to know with children’s privacy needs.

“It’s human nature that, when a door is closed, people are inclined to think something questionable is going on,” Friedman said. “The public has a right to know, so they can pursue appropriate remedies, if any are needed.”

A professional organization representing social workers lobbied against the legislation.

“The confidentiality of the child and the family is at stake here,” said Stacie Hiramoto, a lobbyist for the National Assn. of Social Workers. “Not all parents are evil and there is considerable harm this could do to an individual child.

“If you were able to speak with many of the children in the system,” Hiramoto said, “they would not want the public admitted and their family’s problems aired in public.”

Hiramoto cited a Minnesota official who said that state’s new open hearing law had not increased the public’s or press’ interest in the dependency courts.

The Youth Law Center, a San Francisco-based child advocacy group, opposes the law. Executive Director Carole Shauffer said attorneys who represent children are so overburdened that they won’t be prepared to demand the closure of cases, even when it would be in the best interests of a child.

“These lawyers sometimes have 200 or 300 cases and they are not all in position to know them or protect them,” Shauffer said.

The bill next goes within two weeks to the Assembly, where both proponents and opponents said they are uncertain of its prospects.