*** SB 207 is lengthy and makes several changes in the current law. In order to keep this blog from growing tediously long and lose your attention, this post is only looking at SB 207's effect on presumptively opening the court to the general public in deprivation proceedings. I encourage you to read all of SB 207 located at http://www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2009_10/fulltext/sb207.htm ***
Currently in Georgia, the general public is excluded from all juvenile court cases that involve deprivation (abuse and neglect).* Although the First Amendment guarantees the right to view criminal proceedings, that right had not yet been extended to deprivation cases in juvenile court. Such is largely due to the rationale that rehabilitation and family reunification, the goals of juvenile court, are best achieved in privacy. However, beginning in January 2010, that will all change.
During the 2009 legislative session, Governor Perdue signed SB 207 into law, which will "presumptively" open deprivation hearings to the public. "Presumptively" is set off in quotation marks because it is possible to close the proceedings. However, the procedures to close hearings are not clearly defined and leave a lot to judges' subjective interpretation and discretion. For example, SB 207 allows judges to close deprivation proceedings based on a finding on the record and issue a signed order stating the reasons for closing all or part of the proceedings. This provision is leaving a lot of advocates, attorneys, and judges confused. Don't understand why? Let me illustrate the way this provision reads:
Attorney for Little Child feels that Mr. No Good's presence during the deprivation hearing
will not be in Little Child's best interest because of the information that Little Child will
share with the court. To prevent Mr. No Good from attending the deprivation hearing, a
separate hearing, that includes Mr. No Good, is required and Attorney must give the
court evidence of why Mr. No Good's presence is harmful to Little Child, (i.e. tell the court
and Mr. No Good all of the information that Attorney would like to keep from Mr. No
Good and why it would be bad if Mr. No Good heard the information.... all while Mr. No
Good is present and listening). Make sense?
Moving away from the procedures to close deprivation hearings, let me move now to the main issue that troubles me with the changes that SB 207 makes. I'm worried about children being able to learn personal, sensitive information about other children. Since deprivation hearings are now open, any parent and child at the juvenile court will be able to attend the deprivation hearing. I imagine the situation where a child that is at the court for a delinquency (criminal) charge sees another child from school and decides to check out that child's deprivation hearing. During the hearing, the delinquent child learns all about the abuse the deprived child suffered, and the degrading, disgusting things the deprived child had to do in order to survive. Then, since children are children, the delinquent child goes to school and tells everyone about everything that came out during the deprived child's hearing. Then, not only did the deprived child have to endure living the abuse and neglect all over again in the courtroom, but now the deprived child has to face the questions, taunts, bullying, and pity of his or her peers.
Now as I stated in the caveat, this post is only a very small portion of SB 207. However, I'm curious to know if I am the only one bothered by this. Critics of closed deprivation hearings believe that opening the deprivation hearings will raise accountability...many, including myself, believe that it will raise the number of safety concerns and problems. Parents, teachers, attorneys....how does this make you feel? What problems can you imagine as a result of SB 207?
*However, the general public is allowed to attend legitimation and child support hearings.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I do not agree with this at all. There have to be other ways to raise accountability that are less invasive and less harmful to the children involved in abuse and neglect proceedings. It is hard enough for a child to endure these proceedings in a closed courtroom, I can't imagine what it will be like for these children to have others present in the courtroom listening to their personal information.
ReplyDeleteThis makes me wonder if we are moving in the direction of making all juvenile court proceedings open to the public. I think we are starting down a slippery slope here.
I totally agree. Georgia is fortunate to have several child advocacy organizations continuously research, analyze, and draft policies that positively affect children and families. I would think that the extensive involvement with Georgia's juvenile code rewrite (SB 292) would evidence the willingness of so many organizations and stakeholders to make sure Georgia's children are protected.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, a provision in the juvenile code rewrite (SB 292) will overturn SB 207 if it is adopted exactly as it currently stands. Many advocacy organizations are promoting SB 292's passage; however, there are organizations that aren't (i.e. Better Courts for Kids). I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.
Hello! IMO I think it depends on the situation but then you would have to apply guidelines to govern the guidelines and I get a headache just thinking about all that needs to be sorted out.
ReplyDeleteFor example: We just moved here to this area (military) and My Daughter(4th grade) forgot to do her homework so she was placed in a "punishment room" to make up the assignment. She worked clear thru recess and lunch because the school "FORGOT" to tell her to go to lunch. The principal had no one watching over this room while My Daughter was in there.I was given an apology(over the phone) by the school principal. However....what guidelines govern the school systems? because if I "forgot" to feed my daughter tonight CPS would be at my door in the morning!
In My case I would want an open proceding because other parents NEED to know about the Neglect. Other situations may warrant a closed proceeding.