| Chapter
2
Juvenile
Justice
By Jack
Kresnak
How Journalists Can Negotiate the Juvenile Justice System
State employees, private child-care agencies and even juvenile
court officials usually are barred from releasing information
about specific cases of child abuse/neglect or juvenile delinquency.
Covering the juvenile justice system can be more difficult for
the journalist than covering the Pentagon. But it is just as important
to inform the public about the successes and failures of efforts
to protect children as it is to cover issues of national security.
Most professionals in the child welfare system prefer keeping
information about at-risk children and their families confidential.
They fear that journalists may exploit children in sensational
news stories and that news reports about specific children will
interfere with attempts to protect or rehabilitate them. They argue
that children, even serious juvenile offenders who may have committed
a murder, deserve a fresh start when they mature into adults and
should not have their pasts haunt them as they struggle to get
into college, land a job, find a spouse or obtain a mortgage.
Although much of the confidentiality in the child welfare system
is required under federal law, usually through funding restrictions
of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, many states
in recent years have either relaxed confidentiality restrictions
for child-care agencies or allowed access to juvenile court hearings
and records. Juvenile courts are typically not subject to federal
confidentiality rules, but they must follow laws in most states
that require closing juvenile court hearings to the public.
Even states that allow reporters access to juvenile court hearings
still restrict journalists' access to records. As no reporter
is able to be in all courts all the time, this presents a serious
challenge to the journalist's mission of being accurate and fair.
The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, based
in Reno, Nevada, believes the public has a right to know how courts
deal with children and families. The council recommended in 1998
that "the proceedings of juvenile and family court shall be
held in open court unless the welfare of the child would be adversely
affected."
No state has gone further than Michigan in allowing access to
juvenile court hearings and records. In 1987, the state legislature
and Michigan Supreme Court responded to a series of published articles
about the "revolving door" of juvenile justice by opening
juvenile courts to the public and the press. Allowing the news
media access to the court would shed light on the hidden world
of juvenile justice, the public officials decided.
Some records about juveniles had to remain confidential. So Michigan
created a two-file system in which the public is allowed access
to a child's "legal file" which contains petitions with
allegations, subpoenas, names of interested parties and other routine
paperwork. A second "social file," with psychological
evaluations, family histories, school records and progress reports
from institutions, is restricted to parties in the case.
There is an opening, though, for journalists who wish to see the
confidential file. Under Michigan law and court rules, the
judge may allow another "interested person'' access to the
social file if there is a compelling public interest in doing so.
Journalists are
concerned about the public interest and can make reasonable arguments
to the judge to gain access to the confidential records. Sometimes
the requests are made informally by simply talking to the judge
and asking, at other times a journalist must file a written request
or even a legal motion for access. Judges may decide to hold a
hearing on the request and give prosecutors, state officials, parents
or child advocates the opportunity to object to opening confidential
records.
Differences between states vary greatly. In Illinois, for example,
juvenile court records are confidential and not available for review
by the press. But, after numerous news reports about the failures
of the state's child protection system, the legislature allowed
the Illinois Department of Child and Family Services to release
information to the press and the public in cases in which a child
under the agency's protection had died.
Years of reporting on the failures of Georgia's Department of
Family and Children Services by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jane Hansen led to a new state law in May 2000 that opens the DFC's
files on all children who die under its care. Now the newspaper
routinely reviews state documents on all child deaths, although
reporters still are restricted from routine reporting of juvenile
court.
Reporters like Hansen who spend the time to familiarize themselves
with the complex juvenile justice system may be surprised at how
much cooperation they actually can get. Juvenile court judges,
by and large, welcome fair and accurate coverage of their courts.
They want the public to know how the juvenile justice system works
because an informed public is more likely to support maintaining
or increasing resources devoted to children.
Journalists, however, must balance the privacy of children caught
in the juvenile justice system. News organizations should develop
written policies about naming juveniles. A policy that prohibits
naming the victims of child abuse and neglect or juvenile delinquents
is appropriate, but the news organization should reserve the right
to name an individual child when the circumstances call for it.
Decisions on naming children in the juvenile justice system should
be made at the highest level in the newsroom.
Some reporters have found success in accessing closed juvenile
court proceedings by asking the chief judge for a blanket order
giving them access. The reporters had to promise not to release
the names of juveniles and agree to other restrictions in order
to get in the door. Sometimes, reporters use just first names,
initials or even fictitious names to identify kids in the juvenile
justice system. Of course, the readers or viewers of such reports
should be told about the restrictions and the use of any fictitious
names must be clearly explained.
A journalist with integrity and a history of acting responsibly
while covering juvenile court is likely to find greater cooperation
among the professionals in the juvenile justice system. Conversely,
irresponsible or sensationalistic journalists should expect to
receive little or no help from the people who, after all, are doing
the best they can to protect kids from abuse or criminal behavior.
Continue to the next
page in "Chapter 3: Reporting on Drug Law Enforcement" >>>
<<< Return
to the previous page in "Chapter 2: Juvenile Justice"
|
