Open Hearings: A Questionable Solution

William Mitchell Law Review Volume 26 | Issue 3 2000 Open Hearings: A Questionable Solution Susan Harris Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Harris, Susan (2000) "Open Hearings: A Questionable Solution," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 26: Iss. 3, Article 1. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol26/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact . © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Article 1 Harris: Open Hearings: A Questionable Solution OPEN HEARINGS: A QUESTIONABLE SOLUTION Susan Harrist I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 673 II. BACKGROUND OF CLOSEDJUVENILE PROTECTION H EARIN GS ............................................................................... 674 III. VALID REASONS FOR CLOSING HEARINGS .............................. 676 A. Benefit of Open HearingsDoes Not Outweigh Potential 676 H arm ......................................................................... B. The Media Will Not Convey an Accurate Picture............... 678 IV. VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO OPEN HEARINGS ........................... 680 681 A. Appoint Counselfor Children......................................... B. Appoint Guardiansad Litem for Children...................... 682 683 C. Engage Citizen Review Panels......................................... V . CONCLUSIO N .......................................................................... 685 I. INTRODUCTION According to Minnesota law and rule, juvenile protection casesI are confidential and the court must exclude the public from On February 5, 1998, the hearings related to these cases.2 Minnesota Supreme Court ordered that a pilot project begin which allowed twelve counties to open juvenile protection hearings to the public.3 This order followed recommendations from the Foster f Susan Harris is an Assistant Washington County Attorney, Chief of the Juvenile Division. Ms. Harris served on the Minnesota Supreme Court Foster Care and Adoption Task Force and currently serves on the Minnesota Supreme Court Open Hearings Advisory Committee. 1. Juvenile protection refers to civil actions involving cases of abuse, neglect, truancy, runaway, termination of parental rights and permanency cases which are brought on behalf of a child, commonly by the local social service agency. 2. See MINN. STAT. § 260C.163, subd. 1 (c) (1998) (formerly codified as MINN. STAT. § 260.155 subd. 1(c)); MINN. JUV. PROTECTION R. 64.01 (formerly MINN. Juv. PROTECTION R. 43.01). 3. See Amended Order Establishing Pilot Project on Open Hearings in Juvenile Protection Matters, File No. C2-95-1476 (Minn. S. Ct., filed Feb. 5, 1998), in BENCH & B. OF MINN., Mar. 1998, at 41 [hereinafter Pilot Project Order]. This order came after a bill for open hearings failed in the Minnesota legislature. Twelve counties are participating in the pilot project: Chisago, Clay, Goodhue, Published by Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 2000 1 WilliamWILLIAM Mitchell LawMITCHELL Review, Vol. 26,LAW Iss. 3 [2000], Art. 1 REVIEW [Vol. 26:3 Care and Adoption Task Force, convened by the Minnesota Supreme Court in October 1995. 4 One of the task force's charges was to assess whether open hearings in juvenile court matters (other than delinquency and petty matters) are desirable and to suggest models for these hearings. The task force listed four reasons in support of open hearings: (1) the closed juvenile protection system lacks accountability; (2) the closed juvenile protection system is not truly based on community standards because the community is not cognizant of the perils children face and cannot respond to or comment on practices or funding of the juvenile protection system; (3) the closed juvenile protection system largely is unnecessary because criminal and divorce proceedings involving children who are victims of abuse or neglect are open to the public; and (4) the state of Michigan has had open hearings since 1988 with no apparent problems. Therefore, Minnesota should adopt Michigan's court rules, statutes and practices regarding open hearings. This article provides background and valid reasons for closed hearings.8 It then offers reasonable alternatives to open hearings and concludes that open hearings do not meet their intended purpose but unnecessarily expose families to public humiliation. 9 II. BACKGROUND OF CLOSEDJUVENILE PROTECTION HEARINGS Minnesota law excludes the general public from all hearings in juvenile court proceedings. 0 The court may, in its discretion, permit persons who have a direct interest in the case or in the work of the court to attend those hearings." In In re Welfare of RL.K,1 Hennepin, Houston, LeSuer, Marshall, Pennington, Red Lake, Stevens, St. Louis (Virginia only) and Watonwan. 4. See id. 5. See MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT FOSTER CARE AND ADOPTION TASK FORcE, FINAL REPORT 4 (1997) [hereinafter TASKFORcE REPORT]. 6. See id. at 120-22. 7. See id. at 120-23. 8. See infra Parts II-III. 9. See infra Part IV. 10. See MINN. STAT. § 260C.163, subd. 1(c) (1998) (formerly codified as MINN. STAT. § 260.155 subd. 1(c)). In the case of juvenile delinquency and extended jurisdiction juvenile matters where the juvenile is 16 years of age at the time the offense was committed and the alleged offense was a felony, the proceedings are open to the public. See MINN. STAT. § 260B.130, subds. 1, 2 (1998). 11. SeeMINN. STAT. § 260C.163, subd. 1(c). 12. 269 N.W.2d 367, 371 (Minn. 1978). http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol26/iss3/1 2 2000] Harris: Open Hearings: A SOLUTION Questionable Solution A QUESTIONABLE the Minnesota Supreme Court held that district courts can rule that the media have a direct interest in a case and permit them to attend juvenile protection hearings. The court allowed a reporter to attend a termination of parental rights hearing after carefully weighing the potential harm to the parties and concluding that no harm would befall the parents or children due to the presence of Is the reporter. The reporter promised not to reveal the names or addresses of the parties. In dissent, Justice Wahl wrote, "Public exposure of the proceedings to terminate parental rights in the instant case has as much, if not more, potential for harm and humiliation to the parents and children as publicizing an adoption 5 proceeding."1 According to court rule, the following persons may attend otherwise closed juvenile protection hearings: a party, participants, the county attorney, persons requested by a party or the county attorney and approved by the court, and persons authorized by the court. 16 Parties include the child's guardian ad litem, the child's legal custodian, the petitioner, anyone who inte (...truncated)