On Tuesday the LA County Board of Supervisors will vote on its state legislative agenda for the coming year. The package includes agenda items that range from topics relating to watershed management and flood control, to a push to steer kids away from sugared beverages.
Nestled within the 26-page single-spaced list of legislative priorities is a proposal that could easily fly under the radar. Yet it is an idea that has very large implications for the problems plaguing LA’s troubled foster care system, the Department of Children and Family Services.
The proposal—put forth by the County’s CEO with the blessing of DCFS, and long championed by Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas** in concert with statewide foster care advocates such as the Children’s Advocacy Institute—is a simple one: make dependency court public.
As it stands now, the hearings in which it is decided which kids will be taken from their parents care, and for how long, are closed to almost anyone but family members required to be present, plus attorneys and those who work in the foster care system.
Theoretically, this arrangement is to protect the privacy of the children involved, but it has also created an unhealthy lack of adequate scrutiny—one that often works against the best interest of the kids and families affected by the court’s actions.
I have managed to weasel my way in to several of these hearings in the past few years and, in each case, it was a sobering and eye-opening experience. Suffice it to say that the light of day would do these proceedings great good.
In a statement he will read on Tuesday morning, Ridley-Thomas explains more of the reasoning behind the proposal.
Here is an excerpt:
“Opening dependency courts may yield the biggest bang-for-the-buck of any child protection measure. Any solution to our current child safety crisis lies in expanding, not curtailing civil rights.
“Dependency court proceedings are closed to protect children and their families from potential public humiliation and embarrassment.
“But doing so can also shield a failing system from public scrutiny. As a result, parents may be treated poorly behind closed doors – which many families in my district have said is the case.
“Making dependency court hearings public (with specific privacy protections remaining in place) will make the system accountable. Open proceedings also, however, enable child welfare officials to protect themselves from false accusations.
“In other words, those worthy of scrutiny could no longer hide behind confidentiality; and those who suffer false accusations silently could defend themselves with the public record.
“The news media, with full access to hearings, can be a powerful advocate for currently voiceless parents and children, and can keep an even more vigilant watch on the government…..”
This is an absolutely essential move that we should all support.
Other states such as New York, Illinois, Florida and Pennsylvania have public dependency courts.
It’s time that California open the doors of its courts as well-–sooner rather than later.
**CORRECTION: I originally wrote that Ridley-Thomas proposed the dependency court item, More correctly, the CEO put the item on the agenda at the request of DCFS, while Ridley-Thomas had been working along a parallel track with advocacy groups.
Photo of Edmund D. Edelman Children’s Court
Thanks for calling attention to the urgent need to open these hearings. Since 1980, well over a dozen states have done it, and not one has closed them again. That’s because all the fears of critics proved groundless – indeed one-time critics of openness are now among the biggest boosters of open courts in many states. Details are in our Due Process Agenda, on our website here: http://www.nccpr.org/reports/dueprocess.pdf
While it is impossible to guarantee absolutely that no child ever will be embarrassed by an open court hearing, this much we know: When the system is fully open and accountable, and everyone knows that, if they cut corners, someone may be watching, more children are likely to live long enough to blush.
Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
http://www.nccpr.org
We at L.A. Youth newspaper support opening up dependency court hearings. For the past seven years, we’ve been publishing stories written by foster youth about their experiences in the system. We’ve seen how the decisions made in court have a huge impact on their lives, and they often feel they have little control over what happens to them. The more sunshine on the process, the better.
Amanda Riddle
Foster Youth Editor
L.A. Youth
http://layouth.com
[…] were excited to see today’s WitnessLA’s report on a proposal to open dependency court. We’ve been publishing stories written by foster youth […]
The federal government provides funding for Court Improvement Programs aimed specifically at court proceedings involving child welfare. Several states have opened their juvenile courts–oftentimes with trepidation that the “sky would fall”, but in the end judges who have experienced open court systems say they would never return to the old way of doing things. Minnesota piloted a program in 1998 and subsequently opened its juvenile courts statewide. Note should be taken that many who strongly support open courts are families who have experienced the closed system for themselves (myself included). It would be nice if–besides states taking this step to clear the air–federal court improvement support would include funding specifically directed to opening these courts. (Judges always retain the power to close hearings in the interests of the children involved.) DHHS has stated in publications that oftentimes what one would hope for–that judges actually see the children whose fates they are deciding and that court orders precede removals–simply doesn’t happen. Open courts might change that.
I hope the children’s court system opens to the public. It will save many families needless pain. Too bad my case wasn’t open for all to see what the dcfs system and the court do behind their closed doors. In my children’s case, they lie and twist up stories and then they take the children just because they can, then they keep the children and alienate them from you, they placed my autistic child in an abusive contracted home in Granada Hills where he ended up with injuries from other children or workers there. I found him sleeping in his own vomit, bruises all over his back, old holy underwear and witnessed the foster care provider verbally abusing other children in the home. When I complained about it, my visits were taken from me within an hour and the progress that my family and I had made towards re-unification were reversed by a children’s court referee who did not care for my child. I guess the court cares more about protecting the dcfs system than my autistic son. I actually believed that the court system was real and cared for children. They absolutely do not.
The social workers and public defenders, among others, were against opening the court to the public. Why are they so against public scrutiny? What do they have to hide? The public wants to observe how they protect children. Is that so wrong? Could it be that they cannot protect children or that they can only protect some of the children they “advocate” for and the rest end up being sexually abused or even murdered? The truth is they are not protecting children very well and do not want these shortcomings falling under public scrutiny. I know that I, for one, would be all over exposing their inadequacies. And I, for one, want these people to know that they can keep the courts closed and continue to do their dirty work behind the infamous veil of confidentiality all they want. It’s never going to stop me and others like me from working to tear away that veil of secrecy and expose their crimes. Children in need of protection deserve the best protection available and families wrongly accused of the crime of child abuse deserve to be fully exonerated. Until child protection rises to that level, we advocates for children and families will not stop working to correct the problems in the system.
Moving to Los Angeles County a year and a half ago, I would have never guessed this issue would be at my front door. Thinking like most people in our country, that ever person working in county and state offices are here to work for the people and that most if not all of the state, county, and federal offices and departments are here to protect the rights of the citizens that work hard everyday to keep their families happy and healthy. I must admit I was wrong in think that the Department of Children and Family Services of Lancaster, CA. was working to find the truth of a case I have found myself in, only because my fiance’s ex seems to be able and willing to use the court and DCFS systems to harass him at her whim.
As stated before in the short time I have been in LA County there have been three case brought before DCFS by this person. The first two cases involving alleged sexual abuse between two siblings and both cases have been closed as unfounded. This case that we are currently dealing with has totally shaken my faith in believing anything a CSW is telling me. The worker handling the case now, lies, withholds information, chooses to disregard information in DCFS own system.
At this point I don’t see why his ex would ever stop, sicking DCFS worker’s on him. This has been going on for more then 6 years, with each allegation getting more deprived. The child in the middle of this war is spending her life having to “keep secrets” ass he has told me. Something needs to be done to stop the easy access harassment as well as the way DCFS works with both children and their parents.