A judge in Campbell County closed a hearing in a high-profile child custody case Saturday and put a gag order on the mother, who had "claimed that her ex-husband was using [her daughter's] participation in child
beauty pageants as a reason for the court to award him full custody," reports Meaghan Murphy of WXIX-TV. Family Court Judge Rick Woeste also ordered that 6-year-old Madisyn "Maddy" Verst and her mother could not participate in any pageants "until further notice," Murphy reports. The proceedings are to resume Aug. 31.
Showing posts with label family courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family courts. Show all posts
Monday, August 20, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Press association opposes family-court bill that would set up prior restraint confrontations
The Kentucky Press Association is opposing a proposal that purports to open the state's family court system but would actually fall far short of that promise.
House Bill 239, which was approved last week without dissent and sent to the Senate, would set up a pilot project in state courts that deal with dependency, neglect and abuse proceedings or termination of parental rights. The press association has for years encouraged the state to open family court to the public and the media.
But KPA Executive Director David Thompson, in an email to the association's members, characterized the project as "more of a closed court, once it's open," and said the proposal clearly would violate the First Amendment prohibition of prior restraint on news coverage.
Under the plan approved by the House, any person – a private citizen or a journalist – attending a hearing would be prohibited from naming any individual involved in the court proceeding or giving any information that would lead to the identity of any individual. That would include identifying a witness who testified at the proceeding. That prohibition would be in force "outside of the court room."
The plan also allows anyone attending the hearing to take written notes, but it gives the judge or court official the right to inspect those written notes before the notes are taken from the court room.
"There is no openness when the public and the media are gagged, and written notes sanitized by court officials," Thompson said.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1976 in Nebraska Press Association v. Judge Stuart that a judge's order that journalists who attended a preliminary hearing could not report anything they heard until the trial started was an unconstitutional prior restraint.
The court in 1989 in Florida Star v. B.J.F. ruled unconstitutional a Florida law that prohibited the publication of a rape victim’s name by the news media.
"Numerous legislators have referred to opening family courts as a way to give more transparency to the public about issues involving the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. Nothing needs to be said about how important that is. But House Bill 239 has not become that vehicle," Thompson wrote.
House Bill 239, which was approved last week without dissent and sent to the Senate, would set up a pilot project in state courts that deal with dependency, neglect and abuse proceedings or termination of parental rights. The press association has for years encouraged the state to open family court to the public and the media.
But KPA Executive Director David Thompson, in an email to the association's members, characterized the project as "more of a closed court, once it's open," and said the proposal clearly would violate the First Amendment prohibition of prior restraint on news coverage.
Under the plan approved by the House, any person – a private citizen or a journalist – attending a hearing would be prohibited from naming any individual involved in the court proceeding or giving any information that would lead to the identity of any individual. That would include identifying a witness who testified at the proceeding. That prohibition would be in force "outside of the court room."
The plan also allows anyone attending the hearing to take written notes, but it gives the judge or court official the right to inspect those written notes before the notes are taken from the court room.
"There is no openness when the public and the media are gagged, and written notes sanitized by court officials," Thompson said.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in 1976 in Nebraska Press Association v. Judge Stuart that a judge's order that journalists who attended a preliminary hearing could not report anything they heard until the trial started was an unconstitutional prior restraint.
The court in 1989 in Florida Star v. B.J.F. ruled unconstitutional a Florida law that prohibited the publication of a rape victim’s name by the news media.
"Numerous legislators have referred to opening family courts as a way to give more transparency to the public about issues involving the Cabinet for Health and Family Services. Nothing needs to be said about how important that is. But House Bill 239 has not become that vehicle," Thompson wrote.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Committee OKs bill for openness in family courts
UPDATE, March 1: The full House passed the bill but its prospects in the Senate are unclear.
A Kentucky House committee has passed a bill that would open some family court proceedings to the public in a pilot project.
The House Judiciary Committee voted 9-1 to approved the bill, House Bill 407, sponsored by Rep. Susan Westrom of Lexington. The measure allows the Kentucky Supreme Court to open to public scrutiny seven family courts and monitor the results for four years. However, while the public would be allowed to attend court proceedings, records would remain secret and no audio or video recordings would be permitted. Judges would be allowed to decide whether to participate in the pilot project.
State Supreme Court Chief Justice John Minton has favored more transparency in family and juvenile courts, but the legislature and court system have been slow to act, despite a series of reports detailing problems in the state system.
"It does lift the veil of secrecy," Westrom told the Louisville Courier-Journal. "It does increase the public's confidence in our justice system."
Increasing transparency in family courts is a trend across the nation, according to Patricia Walker FitzGerald, chief family court judge of Jefferson County, who testified before the committee. FitzGerald said about 30 states allow some public scrutiny of family courts.
The bill now awaits action by the entire House.
A Kentucky House committee has passed a bill that would open some family court proceedings to the public in a pilot project.
The House Judiciary Committee voted 9-1 to approved the bill, House Bill 407, sponsored by Rep. Susan Westrom of Lexington. The measure allows the Kentucky Supreme Court to open to public scrutiny seven family courts and monitor the results for four years. However, while the public would be allowed to attend court proceedings, records would remain secret and no audio or video recordings would be permitted. Judges would be allowed to decide whether to participate in the pilot project.
State Supreme Court Chief Justice John Minton has favored more transparency in family and juvenile courts, but the legislature and court system have been slow to act, despite a series of reports detailing problems in the state system.
"It does lift the veil of secrecy," Westrom told the Louisville Courier-Journal. "It does increase the public's confidence in our justice system."
Increasing transparency in family courts is a trend across the nation, according to Patricia Walker FitzGerald, chief family court judge of Jefferson County, who testified before the committee. FitzGerald said about 30 states allow some public scrutiny of family courts.
The bill now awaits action by the entire House.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Open Government Report 2009: Records and meetings laws relatively good, but family courts worry advocates of openness
Kentuckians can feel confident their government is operating with a relatively high degree of transparency and openness, except for “serious problems” in the juvenile and family court system, which includes juvenile proceedings.
That's the news in the 2009 Kentucky Open Government Report, published by the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center and Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky, which publish this blog.
The relatively good state of open-records law was illustrated last week by The Courier-Journal's publication of a story and online database about donations to the University of Louisville Foundation. The story was made possible by a state Supreme Court ruling that ended a long legal battle between the university and the newspaper.
On the other hand, family courts and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services combine to create the biggest black hole in Kentucky government, says Jon Fleischaker, a Louisville lawyer who wrote Kentucky’s open-government laws and remains the state’s foremost First Amendment attorney.
For the full report in PDF format, click here; to read it from a Web page with links, click here.
That's the news in the 2009 Kentucky Open Government Report, published by the Scripps Howard First Amendment Center and Institute for Rural Journalism and Community Issues at the University of Kentucky, which publish this blog.
The relatively good state of open-records law was illustrated last week by The Courier-Journal's publication of a story and online database about donations to the University of Louisville Foundation. The story was made possible by a state Supreme Court ruling that ended a long legal battle between the university and the newspaper.
On the other hand, family courts and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services combine to create the biggest black hole in Kentucky government, says Jon Fleischaker, a Louisville lawyer who wrote Kentucky’s open-government laws and remains the state’s foremost First Amendment attorney.
For the full report in PDF format, click here; to read it from a Web page with links, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)