With no fewer than two task
forces at work evaluating public access to the courts, there's some
hope for healthy change.
Both the Judicial Branch
Public Access Task Force, created by Acting Chief Justice David
Borden and chaired by Justice Richard N. Palmer, and a group put
together by Gov. M. Jodi Rell and headed by attorney Thomas Groark,
say they are committed to a more transparent system and to working
in tandem. Good. Here's one step they can take to prove their commitment:
A suggested change that deserves
their full attention comes from the Center for Children's Advocacy.
The center, based at the University of Connecticut School of Law,
has long sought to open child protection proceedings to the public.
Such proceedings are open in 11 states.
A bill for a pilot program
modeled after New York's got heavy support from the General Assembly's
Judiciary Committee last year, but failed to pass the House of Representatives.
The standard argument against openness, much of it from government
agencies, is that confidentiality in court proceedings involving
children protects their privacy.
But sometimes the good that
comes from exposure of a child's plight outweighs the benefits of
guarding the facts or the victim's identity.
Sunlight has a way of putting
the truth in stark relief and galvanizing the public to react to
injustice. If the system designed to protect children fails them
by, say, placing them in bad foster homes or bouncing them from
one to the other, giving them poor legal representation or putting
their rights second to those of adults, taxpayers should know it.
When children wait months
for proper mental health care and end up institutionalized because
of it, or get sicker because of incompetent decisions on their behalf,
society needs to know it. Openness enhances accountability, illuminates
the scope of child neglect and abuse, and is more likely to foster
positive changes.
Routinely, relatives and
journalists are excluded from court proceedings and cannot be certain
the child's interests are being met. The change as proposed would
presume openness, but would also give the court authority to bar
access when there is a compelling reason, such as the likelihood
a participant could be disruptive or inhibit testimony. Personal
information would be withheld if the judge deemed its disclosure
to be a threat to the child.
As Justice Borden noted at
the first meeting of his task force, "the more transparency and
openness with which we do our job, the more likely it will be that
we will command trust and confidence."
