This Georgia Child Welfare Legal Academy outlines the changes in the law regarding open v. closed juvenile courts after the passage of Senate Bill 207.

1. “SB 207 - Open Juvenile Courts:
The New Law and its Challenges”
Georgia Child Welfare Legal Academy
January 27, 2010
Emory Law School
Atlanta, Georgia
Presented by:
Judge Velma Cowen Tilley
Judge Thomas B. “Britt” Hammond

2. Former Law: O.C.G.A. § 15-11-78
 Presumptively closed hearings:
 “Except as otherwise provided…the general
public shall be excluded from hearings involving
delinquency, deprivation, or unruliness.”
 Who was permitted?
 “Only the parties, their counsel, witnesses,
persons accompanying a party for his or her
assistance and any other person as the court
finds has a proper interest in the proceeding…”
 The child is also permitted, but may be
temporarily excluded, except while allegations of
delinquency or unruly conduct are being made
against him or her.

3. Former Law: O.C.G.A. § 15-11-78, continued
 Exceptions: The general public shall be admitted to:
 The Adjudication hearing involving a Designated Felony;
 The Adjudication hearing involving an allegation of
delinquency brought against a child who has previously been
adjudicated delinquent;
 Note: The Court shall close any delinquency hearing on an
allegation of sexual assault or involving substantial evidence of
matters of deprivation.
 Any child support hearing;
 Any hearing in a legitimation action; or
 At the court’s discretion, any dispositional hearing.

4. The Act: Senate Bill 207
 Signed by Gov. Perdue on April 30, 2009
 Amends O.C.G.A. § 15-11-78 relating to
the exclusion of the public from certain
hearings.
 Purpose: “…to admit the general public to
certain proceedings in juvenile court with
certain exceptions…”
 Effective date: January 1, 2010
 Does not apply to any juvenile court proceeding
filed before that date. Cases filed before January
1, 2010 shall be governed by current law.

5. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Presumptively open hearings:
 The general public shall be admitted to: all of the
hearings listed as exceptions under current law;
and
 “Any hearing in a deprivation proceeding, except
as otherwise provided…”
 “Deprivation Proceeding” defined by the
act as “…a court proceeding stemming from
a petition alleging that a child is a deprived
child.”

6. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Exceptions: (Procedure for closing)
 The court may close a hearing only upon the
following:
 Making a finding upon the record;
 Issuing a signed order as to the reason or reasons
for closing all or part of the hearing; and
 Stating that:
 (1) the proceeding involves an allegation that
would constitute a sexual offense under
Chapter 6 of Title 16; or
 (2) it is in the best interests of the child.

7. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Required considerations if closing in the
best interest of the child
 In making such determination, the court shall
consider such factors as:
 The age of the child;
 The nature of the allegations;
 The effect open proceedings will have on the court’s
ability to reunite and rehabilitate the family unit;
and
 Whether closure is necessary to protect the privacy
of a child, of a foster parent or other caretaker of a
child, or of a victim of domestic violence.

8. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Who can move to close or exclude a
person from a hearing?
 The court;
 A party;
 The child;
 The child’s attorney or guardian ad litem.

9. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Who may be admitted if closed?
 The parties;
 Their counsels;
 The witnesses;
 Persons accompanying a party for his or
her assistance; and
 Any other person as the court finds has a
proper interest in the proceeding.

10. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Criminal or delinquent conduct exception
 If the conduct alleged could give rise to a criminal
or delinquent prosecution, then attorneys for the
prosecution and defense shall be admitted.
 See, In the Interest of M.S., Ga. App. A08A1771
(12-31-2008) [Former law ruling] [Father of
child objected to the presence of the A.D.A. in the
deprivation hearing under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-78.
The court permitted the A.D.A. in over the
objection. COA held that the court had broad
discretion in admitting persons and did not
abuse its discretion in doing so on this occasion.]

11. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Refusing admittance to an open hearing
 The court may refuse to admit a person upon
making a finding upon the record and issuing a
signed order that the person’s presence at the
hearing would
 Be detrimental to the best interest of the child;
 Impair the fact-finding process; or
 Be otherwise contrary to the interest of justice.
 Temporary exclusion of child in T.P.R.
 The court may temporarily exclude the child
from the hearing except while allegations of
delinquency or unruly conduct are being heard.

12. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Requests for use of electronic
recording, transmission, videotaping,
motion picture or still photography
 Must be made, at least two days in advance of
the hearing; and
 Request is evaluated pursuant to standards
set forth in O.C.G.A. § 15-1-10.1(b).
 Even if the press is admitted:
 The court may order the media not to release
identifying information concerning the child
or family members or foster parent or other
caretaker of a child.

13. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 The general public shall be excluded
from proceedings in juvenile court
unless the hearing has been specified as
one open to the general public.
 Examples:
 Delinquency first time offenders;
 Unruly offenders;
 Emancipation proceedings;
 Parental notice of abortion proceedings.

14. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Public inspection of files and records
 “The general public shall be allowed to
inspect…”
 Records of Juvenile Traffic Offenses (15-11-73); or
 Any complaint, petition, or order from any case
that was open to the general public under 15-11-
78, except deprivation proceedings; or
 Any court files and records for proceedings
involving a legitimation petition (15-11-28); or
 Records related to a charge of delinquency
transferred for criminal prosecution (15-11-30.2)
 Note: The Act does not address the issue of
making copies of files or records.

15. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Public inspection of files and records, continued
 QUESTION: Why can’t the general public inspect
records of deprivation proceedings that were open to the
general public?
 Title IV-E restricts the use of information concerning children
involved in abuse and neglect cases. So, if a state wishes to keep
receiving federal funds, then its laws must protect the confidentiality
of these records.
 QUESTION: So how does this impact open deprivation
proceedings?
 The Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 clarifies
that the Title IV-E records confidentiality provisions does not limit
the ability of the state to determine policies regarding public access
to court proceedings on abuse and neglect.

16. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Sealing the Record
 The procedure for sealing records remains
unchanged (15-11-79.2)
 15-11-79.2(e) has been modified to remove the
prohibition against sealing the record of a
hearing open to the general public; and
 To specifically permit sealing any record
containing information identifying a victim of a
sexual offense under Chapter 6 of Title 16.

17. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Information Sharing Mandate – New
O.C.G.A. § 15-11-84
 “Governmental entities…
 State, county, consolidate or municipal
governments, departments, boards or agencies,
specifically including DJJ, DBHDD, DHS, DFCS,
& Public Schools
 …shall exchange with each other all
information not held as confidential
pursuant to federal law and relating to a child
which may aid in the assessment, treatment,
intervention or rehabilitation of a child…”

18. The Act: Senate Bill 207, continued
 Information Sharing Mandate,
continued
 “Information which is shared…shall not
be utilized to assist in the prosecution of
the child… or utilized to the detriment of
the child.”
 Release of this information does not
rescind the confidential nature of the
information and it shall not be subject
to public disclosure or inspection unless
otherwise permitted by law.

19. Discussion Points
 Do open deprivation proceedings
violate federal law?
 The Child Abuse Prevention and
Treatment Act of 1974 (CAPTA)
required near complete record
confidentiality. Title IV-E requires
record confidentiality.
 The 2003 reauthorization of CAPTA
allowed the states to determine
whether or not to open its deprivation
proceedings. The Deficit Reduction
Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005
clarified that states could open
proceedings and not violate Title IV-E.
 CAPTA required that the procedure for
opening must “at a minimum ensure

20. Discussion Points
 Will open deprivation proceedings lead to
greater accountability within juvenile
courts?
 The 1998 Minnesota Open Courts Study
found that a greater number of foster parents
and relatives attended; and
 Some courts reported their staff being more
aware of policies and procedures.
 However, the Minnesota Open Courts Study
also found that public participation
significantly diminished within a few months
of opening proceedings.

21. Discussion Points
 Will media participation negatively
affect the outcomes of deprivation
proceedings?
 The 1998 Minnesota Open Court Study
found that opening courts to the media
was a “non-event.” Participation was
heavy at first and tapered off within a few
months.
 What about motive and sensationalism?
 Some jurisdictions with open proceedings
report that the public and press are only
interested in notorious cases.
 Minnesota Open Court Study
recommended special media training

22. Discussion Points
 Will media participation stigmatize
families and hamper reunification,
especially in small communities
where gossip abounds?
 The Minnesota Open Courts Study
monitored this situation and found that
generally no member of the public
without a connection to the family
attended the hearings.
 SB 207 gives the court discretion to
close proceedings in the child’s best
interest.

23. Discussion Points
 Will open deprivation proceedings create a
greater possibility of “re-victimizing”
children?
 A 2005 survey of California pediatric
psychologists showed that pediatricians
believed open courts would cause the severity
of PTSD to increase.
 SB 207 permits the closing of a hearing to
protect the child and the exclusion of
individuals from an open hearing.
 Two jurisdictions (Washington & Florida) with
similar open court laws to Georgia have seen
little increase in public participation.

24. Discussion Points
 “Juvenile court secrecy harms children”
(www.bettercourtsforkids.org)
 To corroborate this statement, BCKO points to a specific
individual case where the court returned a child to the parents
based on a DFCS and GAL recommendation, but over the
objections of the CASA and the Citizen’s Review Panel.
 This specific case was editorialized in AJC and was critical of
the court and DFCS.
(www.ajc.com/search/content/2008/10/30dhred.html)
 Additional evidence presented to support this argument is a
2008 report of the University of San Diego’s School of Law
entitled “State Secrecy and Child Deaths in the U.S.” Georgia’s
public disclosure policy received an “F.”
(www.childlaw.org/Misc/State_Secrecey_Final_Report_April24.p
dg)
 PROBLEM: It appears that the editorial’s criticism are based