Should juvenile courts be open to the public?

Boston Globe

16-02-2025

It's an idea worth examining, potentially through a pilot program, and Brownsberger's bill should be a starting point for the discussion. While protecting the privacy of young people is vital, bringing sunlight into a system can help identify and address problems.
Advertisement
As Blitzman told the editorial board, 'It's not an either/or proposition. Some people who are invested in the status quo, while they have understandable concerns about stigmatization and embarrassment of youth and parties, they don't realize that states that have presumptively open juvenile court systems do it in a considered fashion, which adequately balances private and public interests.'
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Massachusetts' juvenile courts handle delinquency and youthful offender cases, where a young person is accused of criminal behavior. They also hear care and protection cases (when a child is removed from a parent because of abuse or neglect) and cases terminating parental rights.
The issue of whether to open these courts to public scrutiny was raised in
But
Advertisement
He notes that the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court is open, and its judges also hear sensitive cases related to minors, like divorce, child custody, and paternity.
If Massachusetts opened juvenile court, it wouldn't be an outlier. In 2005, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
As of 2019, 24 states had opened juvenile delinquency proceedings to the public, according to
Ely said states with open hearings usually have guardrails allowing judges to close hearings or limit attendance. Judges may ask attendees to identify themselves so, for example, an abuser cannot attend their victim's hearing.
Advertisement
At the same time, however, opening juvenile court does raise concerns about private information leaking out — about children's actions or their family or personal circumstances, which can include abuse, domestic violence, or substance use.
Chantel Johnson, a former foster youth and consultant to the California-based Youth Law Center, led efforts years ago opposing opening California's dependency courts. Johnson said she worries about bullying if private information about a child's health or family leaks on social media, and about increasing a child's trauma if journalists report on their case. When California was considering the bill, which did not pass, Johnson advocated for an amendment allowing youth to request a closed courtroom.
Brownsberger's bill would let a judge close a hearing entirely, exclude a particular person, or restrict document access for a 'compelling reason,' like protecting privacy, a participant's opposition, a disturbance, or protecting someone from harm.
The problem is there haven't been many comprehensive studies about whether opening courts improves the juvenile justice and child welfare systems or individual case outcomes.
Establishing a pilot program to open some juvenile courts — with protections in place to ensure children's privacy on sensitive topics — could let Massachusetts policy makers collect the data needed to determine if it's an idea worth further pursuing.
Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us