Dependency courts must be open to public scrutiny

Dependency courts must be open to public scrutiny

Dependency courts fly under the radar in California. If you're a registered voter, you'll never be called to serve at one. They're rarely seen on television. Since they aren't associated with high-profile crime, many Californians have never heard of them.

Low profile as they are, these courts have a substantial impact on the future of California. And for the children and parents who find themselves in the system, the courts can decide the direction of their lives. For these reasons, we believe they should be open to public scrutiny.

The courts oversee California's sprawling foster care system. The judges who preside over them determine the fates of children who are removed from their homes following reports of abuse or neglect. Last year, more than 58,000 children learned whether they'd be allowed to stay with their families - or enter the foster care system. Once children enter the foster care system, with its spin cycle of foster homes and group facilities, they often have to go back to dependency court if they hope to be reunited with their families.

Needless to say, these are big decisions for any court. Ideally, they'd be made by judges who have the time to closely examine each case, with the assistance of lawyers who had considered each family's history. But there have been reports that California's dependency courts are the exact opposite of this scenario. There are stories of judges who have to rule on more than 100 cases a day, and lawyers for children and parents who barely meet their clients.

Common sense suggests that these conditions aren't good for California's most defenseless children. But because the courts are closed to the public, we don't really know what the impact has been.

"The participants in this system are never going to be held accountable unless there is public scrutiny," said Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles. "I'm a huge believer in the power of transparency and scrutiny for providing the accountability we need."

Feuer is the author of AB73, which would make dependency courts "presumptively" open. The idea is that the dependency courts are open to the public, unless a judge decides there's cause to keep a case out of the public eye.

Seventeen other states have open dependency courts, said Feuer, and there's some evidence that allowing public scrutiny has improved matters for foster youth. Clearly, he added, this is only one step in the process of improving foster care, but "there's never going to be meaningful reform without public awareness."

The legislation has powerful opponents in the form of the social workers union, however.

"We're most concerned that this kind of exposure will lead to peer bullying for these children, and psychological harm," said Mary Gutierrez, a spokeswoman for the California branch of the Service Employees International Union, which represents social workers. "The kids shouldn't have their most private and personal information exposed to the world."

Gutierrez is right that the situation has to be handled with care. Children who find themselves in dependency court have likely already suffered enough. They don't deserve to be revictimized by anyone who doesn't understand the value of privacy.

But there are ways to ensure the privacy of those children without cloaking the entire system in darkness. Feuer has promised to build safeguards for children into the legislation.

The adults in the process, however - including the social workers - don't necessarily deserve the same levels of protection. If they're doing a good job, then the public deserves to know. If they're not doing a good job, then the public deserves to know.

Californians can't make the right reforms to our foster care system unless we know how it's working. Opening the dependency courts is a small but crucial step in the process.

At SFGate.com/blogs/opinionshop: Daniel Heimpel, project director of Fostering Media Connections, on the role of journalism in pushing for California reforms.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/03/19/EDEI1H584P.DTL#ixzz1HBmUjxlU