Access to juvenile records stirs up controversy

Opponents:

opening records may hurt families' reputation

By KURT NESBITT

Journal Staff Writer

NEW ULM -- A recent mandate from the Minnesota State Supreme Court which opens court records and hearings in juvenile protection to the public is creating a controversy in Brown County, despite a 12-county pilot program that found no problems with it, and public statements from Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz who says the move serves a public benefit.

The mandate, issued on Dec. 19, follows a two-year pilot program which included Le Sueur and Watonwan counties.

Blatz said last week that she pushed to open the cases because the presumption that government operates openly benefits the public.

The mandate's opponents fear publishing sensitive family information could adversely affect the reputation of a family or an individual.

Its supporters say opening the court records and proceedings for a juvenile protection case could bring more attention and accountability to a system that sometimes loses children through its cracks.

The mandate will still allow judges to close hearings if they find that certain circumstances exist.

Additionally, the public won't have access to medical reports, victim testimony, names of people who report abuse and records that specifically identify an underage victim of alleged sexual assault or any shelter or foster care facility where a child is placed.

It will, however, open hearings in matters of protection and services, neglect, foster care, review of out-of-home placement cases, and terminations of parental rights.

Family law attorney Ruth Ann Webster of Gislason and Hunter of New Ulm said the mandate won't significantly change access laws, but will allow people currently not allowed at hearings like grandparents and friends to attend the hearings.

"There are times when we want the system to be accountable," she said. "Perhaps we feel there's a child that gets lost in the system....if something goes wrong, it can mean greater accountability."

While the mandate carries several positives for Webster, she admits there are a few potential problems. She said that while most children's names will remain private, those 13 to 15 years old who are involved with child protection action could see future problems. Their names will be tied to a court case, which is detrimental in terms of applying for certain jobs.

Brown County Family Services Director Tom Henderson has a different point of view. He said he's been against the mandate ever since the pilot project began in 1998 and testified to the State Senate Judiciary Finance Committee to that effect.

He said his main fear is what he and other social service professionals call a "chilling effect", where people who would normally report incidents refuse to do so out of fear of public exposure through the news media and through peers.

"These families experience hurt and pain because it hangs in the social sphere for sometimes generations," he said. "It's great to trust a local newspaper, but I'd rather have a law."

Henderson however acknowledged that none of the counties in which the mandate was tested saw those problems, as most local news media did not report on the hearings.

Henderson said reporting child protection situations is important, as Brown County gets 110 child protection complaints a year, and a high number is substantiated.

Assistant Brown County Attorney Clark Tuttle said he sees no public value in opening the hearings, but said he can understand the Supreme Court's decision.

"I cannot believe that this serves any public interest at all that these hearings are open," he said. "It serves to damage the victim more than the public interest."

The Supreme Court's mandate takes effect statewide on July 1. Counties already participating in the pilot project will make records dating back to 1998 available, while the other counties' records become public on the date the mandate takes effect.

While some division of opinion exists in Brown County, it's southern neighbor, Watonwan County, has used open child protection hearings and records since the pilot project began in 1998.

Judge Terry Dempsey said Watonwan is the only county in the Fifth Judicial District that participated in the project. He said he feels that the Supreme Court's mandate has worked because it removes public criticism of secret court proceedings and boosts public confidence in the court system.

Dempsey also said the fear of a chilling effect is only partially true, as certain records will remain confidential. He said Watonwan County's social services programs haven't seen any negative effects from the open records and hearings, mainly because few of them are high-profile cases that grab the attention of anyone outside a child's family.