California Bill for Open Dependency Court Hearings UPDATED

Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) has introduced a bill to make these hearings transparent. At least a dozen other states already conduct dependency hearings in this manner. Specifics will be given in next month’s hearings.

California “has continued to conduct most dependency proceedings in closed courtrooms, shielded not only from the media but also from advocates for children and other interested observers. ”

“Michael Nash, the presiding judge of Los Angeles County Juvenile Court, is a stalwart supporter, and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services, which once opposed it, now favors it as well.”

LA Dependency Court Hearings
[Los Angeles Times 2/12/11]

Update: “Children’s advocates, judges and government officials told state legislators Tuesday [March 1, 2011] that opening proceedings for dependency court would improve accountability and transparency for a key branch of the legal system that handles cases of child abuse, child neglect and foster care placements.‬”

They cited success in Minnesota’s system that has open dependency courts and have not been shown to harm any children. Some public defenders and social workers still objected. “Changes in law could lead to additional costs for the courts by requiring new training and time-consuming hearings, they added.”

California Dependency Courts Need to Be Open
[Los Angeles Times 3/2/11 by Victoria Kim]

Update 2/Editorial: Worth reading!
“Foster kids don’t have a union,” testified one witness, Ed Howard, from the Children’s Advocacy Institute. “They don’t have a Chamber of Commerce. They can’t vote. They don’t have PACs. They aren’t hiring PR firms. They don’t do grass-tops or grass-roots organizing.” And they suffer as a result. “Most everything bad that happens to them,” Howard added, “happens to them in secret.”

“The choice is not between embarrassing children or protecting them; it is between holding the system accountable and cloaking it in secrecy. The problem is not inquiring journalists or other observers; it is abusive parents and neglectful officials who take over the lives of these children and then fail them.”

“Last week, he made his case yet again. The harm being done to children, he explained, comes not from the media or exposure. To the contrary, it comes from “people close to them” and from “a system that hasn’t properly and doesn’t properly serve a great number of them.”

California foster-care system: Secrecy that hurts kids
[Los Angeles Times 3/8/11 by Jim Newton]

Update 3/Editorial: A look at failures on both ends of the spectrum.

“Obviously, we all want children removed from abusive and dangerous situations, but government officials don’t always get it right. Many times, families are torn asunder based on unproven allegations and hearsay. The parents have no real standing in the court system and no real rights. The overburdened court system makes quick decisions that involve the fate of children and their families. Parents spend their life’s savings hiring attorneys and battling this impenetrable system.

America remains a remarkably free society, but there are parts of our society that are frighteningly totalitarian. This is one of them. In one case I wrote about, Russian immigrants watched as the authorities removed their autistic son from their home and placed him in one of those developmental institutions, where he was pumped full of drugs and kept away from his loving family. No one had ever accused the family of mistreating the boy, but the authorities decided that it would be better to treat him with drugs than in the drug-free manner preferred by the family.

I recall the parent telling me that the authorities would never touch your family in the Soviet Union. He was shocked that such a travesty could take place in America. In another case I wrote about, an 8-year-old girl was taken from the loving care of her grandmother and placed in the custody of a foster parent who had been accused of some rather bad behavior at his foster home. In yet another case, a social worker was credibly accused of committing fraud – by claiming that a child’s burn was the result of abuse rather than a household accident. It was extremely difficult getting any information about these situations. The approach from the authorities was clear: It was none of anybody’s business. No wonder so many parents live in fear.

On the other end of the spectrum, we’ve all read about children who are left in abusive homes and end up being brutally abused, even murdered. Many of the bigger CPS systems are bureaucratic nightmares. We’d like to think that the people who make these decisions operate with a Solomonic sense of justice, yet we know better given what we know about closed bureaucracies.”

End Totalitarianism in Kids Courts
[Orange County Register 3/11/11 by Steven Greenhut]

Update 4/Editorial: “There is never going to be reform without public awareness” states one of the author’s of the bill. This editorial discussed how “[t]here are stories of judges who have to rule on more than 100 cases a day, and lawyers for children and parents who barely meet their clients.”

Dependency Courts Must Be Open to Public Scrutiny
[San Francisco Chronicle 3/20/11]

Update 5: This bill has died in the Assembly committee, effectively killing it for the remainder of the legislative period.

“AB 73, by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles), was supported by many child advocates, the presiding judge of Los Angeles County children’s court and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

The bill was opposed by social workers whose work would regularly be available for public review for the first time, as well as the California Youth Connection, former Senate leader John Burton and the court-appointed lawyers who represent children in the Los Angeles County system. ”

Dependency courts oversight bill dies in Assembly
[The Los Angeles Times 4/26/11]

Update 6: “The presiding judge of Los Angeles County’s juvenile court is preparing to open proceedings for dependency court in an effort to improve accountability and transparency for a branch of the legal system that handles child abuse, child neglect and foster care placements.

Members of the media and the public are barred from entering dependency courtrooms without court permission, but Judge Michael Nash is proposing a blanket order that would make the hearings presumptively open unless someone objects and a judge chooses to close the hearing.

A similar effort to open juvenile courts in Sacramento failed earlier this year following objections by the union that represents social workers and some foster children. But Nash —an advocate of government transparency—believes that the courts can be opened without new legislation.”

“Before the order is made final, however, he is soliciting opinions from interested parties by the end of the month.”

“Janis Spire, executive director of the Alliance for Children’s Rights, said her organization was supportive of Nash’s order but hoped that it could be adjusted so that too much identifying information about children is not released, including last names and Social Security numbers.”

Presiding judge prepares to open L.A. County dependency courts
[The Los Angeles Times Blog 11/8/11]

Update 7: “A California nonprofit and its allies, including several former foster care youth, gathered on the steps of a juvenile court Monday morning. The group was there to voice their opposition to a proposal to open court hearings to the general public.

California Youth Connection, an organization focused on issues affecting foster youth, organized the rally at Edelman Children’s Court. They’re concern that Presiding Judge Michael Nash’s proposed blanket order to automatically open juvenile court hearings to the media and the public, would put youth at risk.

Children’s Law Center of California executive director Leslie Heimov called Nash’s proposal “a solution in search of a problem,” in her speech.

Heimov said at a recent legislative hearing, the administrative office of the court indicated that one of the biggest problems court face is lack of information, one that could be worsened with the impending change.

“We already face an uphill battle in our effort to have parents and children feel safe enough to talk freely and openly about their family situation,” she said. “The presence of strangers over the child’s objection will only reduce the flow of information.”

Heimov went on to say that seemingly innocuous topics presided over in court should be kept private because they can be painful experiences for clients.

“We teach our children not to ask other people questions as simple as: ‘How much do you weigh?’; ‘How old are you?’; ‘Why do you have that scar on your face?'” she said. “But under this order, even when they ask for privacy, children who are in court because they are victims may be told ‘All of your business is the public’s business.'”

Former foster youth Lucias Bouge, 19, said opening court hearings to the public breach an individual’s right to privacy.

“It’s just not okay – there are children that are raped and taken from their parents because of really traumatizing situations, and to open that up to the public is just a complete invasion of privacy and our personal rights,” he said at the rally.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Nash called for open hearings in an effort to improve accountability and transparency for a branch of the legal system that handles child abuse, child neglect and foster care placements.

The Times reported that Nash believes the courts can be opened without new legislation.

“There is a lot that is not good [in the dependency courts], and that’s an understatement,” Nash said earlier this year at a hearing in Sacramento on legislation that would have opened dependency courts.

“Too many families do not get reunified […] too many children and families languish in the system for far too long. Someone might want to know why this is the case.”

Heimov said that under current law, judges already have the discretion to open proceedings to select members of the public on a case-by-case basis. Media can be granted access if they give full disclosure of who will be present.

“The stakes are incredibly high here. Once a child’s name and extremely intimate details of their lives or their picture are made public, the bell cannot be unrung,” Heimov said.”

Los Angeles foster youth rally against open juvenile court hearings
[KPCC 11/21/11 by Corey Bridwell and Andrea Wang]

Reformatina says “Why can’t records be made public with redacted names and any identifying information?”

Rally likes Reformatina’s idea: Holding the Social Workers accountable WHILE PROTECTING the Child’s Privacy! The Public and Press don’t need to be live in the court room.

Update 8: “The presiding judge of Los Angeles County’s juvenile court said Monday he would issue an order in the coming days that would increase access for the press and public in a branch of the legal system that handles child abuse and foster care cases.

Judge Michael Nash’s annoucement capped a hearing on his proposed order that drew an overflow crowd to hear a debate that had sharply divided many involved in the child welfare system.

Much of the debate since his proposal was floated in November centered on the perceived benefits or weaknesses of more openness, but Nash opened his hearing by saying he wanted to focus solely on existing law and stay clear of broader policy discussions.

“My purpose is to implement the statute that applies and the case law that applies,” Nash said.

Under his proposed order, the news media would be presumed to have a legitimate interest that would allow them to attend hearings. Other members of the public would have to demonstrate a legitimate interest or be present with the consent of the child or the child’s attorney.

The news media and other members of the public could be barred from the courtroom but only after an objection is raised by one of the parties to the case. The objection would have to demonstrate that “there is a reasonable likelihood that access will be harmful to the child’s or children’s best interest.”

Kelli Sager, an attorney for the Los Angeles Times, said Nash’s proposed order finally provides a road map for judges who are attempting to implement a law that allows them to “admit such persons as he deems to have a direct and legitimate interest.”

“For 20 years,” she said, “there has been no process set up … and the process has been inconsistent or ad hoc at best.”

Leslie Starr Heimov, executive director of the Children’s Law Center of California, which represents the vast majority of children in the dependency system, said her firm continues to consider an appeal if the order is implemented. However, she said recent revisions “largely cured” her objections by raising the bar for non-news-media members of the public to remain in the courtroom.

Heimov said in an interview that her biggest remaining concern involves the hearings that would take place if an objection to public or news media attendance is raised. Such hearings should be closed to the public, she said, while lawyers argue about the potential harm to the child’s interests.

“Otherwise, we’re exposing the child to harm before the finding of the harm,” she said.

If that issue is resolved, she said her office may not appeal the order.”

L.A. judge plans to open child dependency courts to press, public
[LA Times 1/30/12]

REFORM  Puzzle Piece

Social worker accountability with appropriate child privacy protection is what we are hoping for in this case.

Update 9: “They came together to voice support for a lawsuit that would appeal a blanket order made by Los Angeles Judge Michael Nash. His order would open juvenile court hearings to the public and media.

Nash’s ruling applies largely to cases concerning child abuse, foster care, and adoption proceedings in court.

Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children’s Law Center of California believes that opening up these cases makes it harder for children’s rights to be protected.

“If the proceedings are open and their information gets out that would lead to identifying who the child is with or where they are living, what school they’ve changed to their physical safety could be threatened.”

“In some cases children may want their story to be heard, but the CYC believes there needs to be a choice and case by case assessment of whether any of the information could be harmful.”

Foster Youth fights to protect children in court
[Intersection South LA 2/8/12 by Devin Altschul]

Choice of identity and case by case assessment. We agree. Accountability and identifying everything about the child are NOT mutually exclusive.

Update 10: A forum was held today in California about media access

http://fosteringmediaconnections.org/awatchedsystem/

 

A Watched System

 

A forum to discuss the opportunity for ethical journalism in the juvenile dependency court system

 

On November 15th, Fostering Media Connections (FMC), in association with the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute of Law and Social Policy at Berkeley Law will produce a “National Conversation” exploring the often acrimoniours debate over whether or not the news media should have access to juvenile dependency proceedings.

 

On one side you have a foster care system burdened with the almost impossible task of mitigating the worst effects of societal dysfunction: child abuse, neglect and child death. Stymied by confidentiality laws and fear that any mistake will be met with public ire and fierce disciplinary action, workers and child welfare leaders are by-and-large afraid of the potential fallout wrought by negative – even if truthful – media coverage.

 

On the other side you have a cast of overwhelmingly well-intentioned journalists, who are met with a foster care system practically and – in more than half the states – legally cloaked in obscurity. Working under deadline, with limited space on the page and often lacking the deep institutional knowledge to accurately cover the nuances of this complex system, some journalists meet the system’s predisposition to obfuscate as a challenge and even worse an insult.

 

The system’s culture of confidentiality invariably erodes the news media’s confidence in it, resulting in more of the coverage that the foster care professionals fear. It is a closed loop, which has given us our current, warped public perception of a broken foster care system. While child welfare professionals could be explaining the solutions to the difficult and fundamental problems they face, they spend an inordinate amount of time deflecting journalists’ probing questions about non-representative stories such as child death. The plain result is that myriad opportunities to engender public and political will are missed and children suffer as a result.

 

In an effort to foment increased responsible coverage of the foster care system, Fostering Media Connections has created a code of ethics for journalists to follow. By submitting to the guidelines therein there may be an opportunity to trade complete journalistic freedom for access – resulting in a more transparent accountable system. Fostering Media Connections journalists have used the draft code, to enter four otherwise closed juvenile courts in California’s Siskiyou, Marin, San Mateo and Yolo counties.

 

During the forum in November, experts in law, public policy, child welfare, and journalism will come together to assess the impact of media access to the dependency court system and the possibility of raising the ethical standards of that coverage. In addition, FMC released a report this September that outlines the current state of affairs in the dependency court system and an overview of the documented effects of open and closed courts.

 

We hope that this forum can help bridge the gap between the child welfare system and the media, create a more informed debate on the topic, and produce practical solutions to better the systems that so many children depend upon.

 

FEATURED SPEAKERS:

 

Michael Nash, Presiding Judge, Los Angeles County Juvenile Court

 

Jim Newton, Editor at Large for the Los Angeles Times

 

Barry Krisberg, Director of Research and Policy at The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute of Law and Social Policy

 

John Diaz, Editorial Page Editor for the San Francisco Chronicle

 

Lily Dorman Colby, Former Foster Youth and Berkeley School of Law Student

 

Leslie Heimov, Executive Director for the Children’s Law Center of California

 

Chantel Johnson, Former Foster Youth and Legislative and Policy Coordinator for California Youth Connection

 

 

1:00 PM PST – 3:00 PM PST

 

2:00 PM CST – 4:00 PM PST

 

3:00 PM EST – 5:00 PM EST

 

Doors open at 12:15 PM

 

WHERE:

 

Physical Event:

 

Berkeley Law School

 

Booth Auditorium, Room 105

 

215 Boalt Hall

 

Berkeley, CA 94720

 

Webcast: For folks anywhere else in the country, please click here at the appropriate time and you will be able to watch the video live.

Update 11: “Los Angeles County court hearings to decide whether a potentially endangered child should be removed from his or her parents and placed in foster care will remain largely open to the media and public under a new judicial order.

Superior Court Judge Michael Nash, who presides over the county’s juvenile court, issued the order Friday in response to an appeals court decision that struck down a previous order opening the courts to public view.

Under the new order covering all dependency hearings, Nash said judicial officers should ask attendees to identify themselves and state their interest in the case or the court’s work. Under the previous order, Nash did not require attendees to identify themselves.

Lawyers involved in the case will have the opportunity to argue that the news media or public should be barred from the hearing, but they must show that the presence harms a child’s best interest.

In January 2012, Nash issued his first decree that dependency hearings, which had been presumptively closed for years, were now presumptively open to the press.

But in March, a California appeals court ruled that Nash erred in the order.

In a 2-1 decision, the appellate panel said the first blanket order opening the courts for hearings to decide whether children should be removed from their families interfered with individual judges’ discretion “to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a person may be admitted to the hearing based on a ‘direct and legitimate interest in the particular case or the work of the court.'”

The appeal had been brought by a 15-year-old girl who challenged a judge’s decision to allow a Times reporter to observe a hearing at which lawyers discussed whether she should be removed from her family after being assaulted by her stepfather.

Leaders of the court-appointed law firm representing most of the county’s foster children said they would not have objected to the first order if Nash had required attendees to identify themselves upon entering the courtroom.”

Foster care cases to remain open to the public under new order[Los Angeles Times 8/8/14 by Garrett Therolf]