Does a more open court system make child welfare agencies and courts more accountable, or does it violate the privacy of children who have been victims of abuse and neglect? Right now, California’s dependency courts, which decide foster care cases, are closed to the public unless a judge decides to grant access. But a bill introduced earlier this year in the California Assembly would allow the public to attend most court cases.

The bill, known as AB73, is supported by many child welfare officials and advocates. Opponents fear it could further traumatize children if open court hearings reveal details of abuse, neglect, and other sensitive personal information. The bill’s author, Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, said that the policy has not harmed children in the other states that have open-record courts. Instead, he said, it has led to improvements in the way cases are managed by social workers, lawyers, and judges.

Tweet

Print

The bill was the result of a request made in 2008 by the San Jose Mercury News to allow a reporter to attend closed dependency hearings. A judge granted access, and the paper published a series of stories exposing major shortcomings in the foster care and court systems.

“In some dependency courts, judges rule on more than 100 children’s cases in a single day, and lawyers for parents and children are so harried they have only minutes to confer with clients in the hallway before life-altering hearings,” the Mercury News reported in February.

The bill would only allow the public to attend court proceedings; it would not allow public access to files, and judges could still decide to close certain cases to the public if they felt that opening the court could cause harm. People who attend court proceedings could also be ordered to keep confidential the identities of children involved in cases.

We asked Represent’s young writers to weigh in on AB73. They felt strongly that children’s privacy should be respected. But they also felt that foster care agencies and courts shouldn’t be able to use confidentiality as an excuse for hiding sloppy, substandard casework.

While an open court system creates new opportunities to spot problems and fix the system, it’s not a guarantee of quick change. New York’s family court has had an open court system since 1997 and still struggles with backlogs and long delays.

Creating a more open court system won’t make things better overnight. But it could be an important step in ensuring that journalists, advocates, and other watchdogs expose problems so that California’s troubled child welfare system can be improved.

AB73 is expected to be taken up again by the California legislature in January.