Reviews mixed on open child hearings

AUGUSTA – Child protective hearings should be open so the Department of Human Services could be held accountable and children wouldn’t feel ashamed, according to a guardian ad litem. But a child welfare agency worker countered that open court would traumatize children, delay the legal system and hinder families trying to get better.

Dissenting opinions were the order of the day Monday as the Committee to Review the Child Protective System received testimony during its third meeting at the State House. The committee was appointed by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee to investigate Maine’s Department of Human Services and to report by the end of the year with any recommendations to make the system better.

Margaret Johnson, a Presque Isle lawyer and guardian ad litem, told panelists Monday that secrecy in child protection cases arose at a time when “illegitimacy” was a lifelong scar, but that the practice had outlived its usefulness. She contends that court hearings should be open to reporters and to people who are important in a child’s life.

Public scrutiny would improve the performance of all parties and would increase confidence that the department is trying to protect children, Johnson said. That’s what appears to have happened in Minnesota, where hearings are open, she said.

Therapists, extended family, coaches and neighbors should be allowed in the courtroom to help guardians ad litem make decisions concerning the child, Johnson said.

“I want to be able to use the wisdom of the village,” she said. “If you take four people and talk over a problem, the result will be better than with just one or two because there are more points of view.”

For children, secrecy means shame, Johnson said. Hearing people say that a child’s case is confidential makes the youngster think that he or she did something wrong. “Kids pick up the shame much more than they understand the benefit,” she said.

Closed courts also mean lost opportunities for research, Johnson said. Since she is mandated to keep her files secret, researchers aren’t able to gather information about how children are affected by the system.

DHS isn’t following its own policy on confidentiality because department Web pages that describe children who are available for adoption include information on sexual abuse and domestic violence, Johnson said.

“The department says placement is more important than confidentiality,” she said.

Lucky Hollander, however, believes open courts would increase the parent’s humiliation, guilt and shame and traumatize a child who would be even more humiliated by having news people and spectators in the courtroom. Hollander is vice president of Youth Alternatives, a child welfare agency in Portland that provides therapeutic foster homes, residential facilities and case management services.

Presenting remarks from staff members who were asked what they thought about open courts in child protection cases, Hollander said children may experience post-traumatic stress years after they have been subjected to an open court system.

Public scrutiny could make parents even more resistant to getting treatment, according to agency workers. And parents may not show up for court if they realize that their neighbors or TV cameras will be there. Judges then would need to delay the proceedings and possibly extend the child’s stay at a shelter until the issue is resolved.

But some Youth Alternatives workers also had positive things to say, according to Hollander. Open courts could mean that attorneys would be more accountable and would submit reports on time and that guardians ad litem would be more thorough in gathering information on children.

Also, if the public had a better idea of the horrors some people inflict on children, the laws might change to better represent the needs of children, one worker said.

Toby Hollander, a lawyer and guardian ad litem who is married to Lucky Hollander, worried that reporters would “pick up on salacious details about families” during open court.

“Lots and lots of things come into evidence in child protective hearings that are totally inappropriate to be displayed in the paper or on TV news,” Toby Hollander said.

But even before the committee presents any of its recommendations to the Legislature, DHS may try to remove some of the secrecy behind child protective cases, according to one staffer.

After Monday’s meeting, Karen Westburg, director of the Bureau of Child and Family Services, said the department may launch a pilot project with “some sort of increased access to court proceedings.”

As long as it doesn’t harm children, a looser court process “is one thing that’s under consideration as we move forward with ways to enhance services,” she said.

The Committee to Review the Child Protective System will meet at least one more time in November.