John Diaz on the fight to open child dependency courts.
For years, well-intentioned people who care about California’s most vulnerable children have been deeply, and often bitterly, divided about whether the courts that decide their fate should be open to public scrutiny. Legislation to open California’s dependency courts to the news media — as they are in 24 other states — has run into stiff opposition from unions representing social workers and an influential organization of former foster youth.
There are dedicated child advocates on both sides of the issue. Some believe that transparency will bring a better understanding of the stresses on the system — the heavy caseloads, the deficiency of resources available to these young people — and help make the case for change. Others fear that an irresponsible press could exploit the sordid details of these cases, and the mere presence of a reporter would add to the trauma of a child’s courtroom appearance.
The most recent attempt to open child dependency courts to the public, AB73 by Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, died quietly in the Human Services Committee last year without a recorded vote. It had earlier cleared the Judiciary Committee, 10-0.
It looked as if the stalemate would never end.
Enter Judge Michael Nash, who presides over the Los Angeles County Juvenile Court system, which decides the fate of tens of thousands of abused and neglected children. He firmly believed that closed dependency courts “limited the accountability of all of us” in the system.
Nash did his homework, looking closer at the letter of the law and court interpretations of it. In 1978, the California Supreme Court held that the fact that the statute allowed a judge the discretion to open hearings to outsiders with a “direct and legitimate interest” in a certain case or the work of a dependency court showed that the Legislature intended “to allow press attendance at juvenile hearings.”
Nash was convinced he had the case law on his side to effectively declare his dependency courts presumptively open to the news media and others with a “direct and legitimate interest” in the proceedings.
His policy also provided an opportunity for anyone to object to the presence of a non-relative or guardian — and that the press or other members of the public should be barred if “there is a reasonable likelihood that such access will be harmful” to a child’s interest.
He issued the order in November 2011. It was quickly challenged — and upheld. Southern California journalists (most notably Jim Newton of the Los Angeles Times) have since been covering the courts and hearings, giving their audiences a more textured look at what goes on in these hearings where life-altering decisions are made about where and with whom our most vulnerable children should live.
If anything, Nash said he wished journalists would come every day.
“Shining light on these courts is a way that can help move that battleship,” Nash said during a forum at UC Berkeley School of Law last week sponsored by the advocacy group Fostering Media Connections, which has been trying to bridge the divisions on court access.
Nash seems to have found a solution within existing law, even though it has not been universally embraced by social workers or attorneys in the system.
Leslie Heimov, executive director of the Children’s Law Center that represents 27,000 clients in Los Angeles County, said she did not believe that media access has made, or would make, a positive difference on the courts.
She did acknowledge, however, that judges generally have granted requests to close hearings. And, significantly, she did not cite a single instance in which a
reporter’s presence or reporting has caused harm.
Barry Krisberg, a UC Berkeley law professor, suggested there was irony the way a system that was closed to protect children and families has “too often been used to protect workers in this system.” He characterized the childwelfare system as being “in chaos and disarray” — and the way to change it would be to open the windows and “show how bad it is.”
Count me among the advocates for courtroom transparency. In our extensive coverage of foster-care issues in recent years, one of our more illuminating editorials was the result of writer Pati Poblete being granted access into Santa Clara County’s child-dependency court in November 2005. It detailed how a judge was confronted with 20 cases in a single day, the complexity of the cases, and the fact that some children were not even in court when their fate was determined. (Names and identifiable information about the children were withheld from the piece.)
That experience certainly added a sense of urgency — and authority — to a succession of follow-up editorials that pushed for legislation to increase resources and assert children’s rights to attend hearings on their lives.
I certainly understand the apprehensions of Chantel Johnson, a former foster youth who serves as legislative and policy coordinator for California Youth Connection, who believes that a child’s privacy rights should be pre-eminent in these proceedings. She also believes that myriad reports have produced “enough recommendation for change” in the foster care system.
But nothing is going to change unless and until Californians know — to quote Krisberg — “how bad it is.” Granted, the courtroom hearings provide just a glimpse of what goes on in the system, but it’s an undeniably pivotal moment in these young people’s lives.
The Los Angeles County policy should become a template for access to dependency courts throughout the state.