skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 99420 Find in a Library
Title: Closed Door - A Need for Reform of the California Mandatory Closure Rule in Child Custody Cases Predicated on Parental Abuse
Journal: Pacific Law Journal  Volume:15  Issue:1  Dated:(October 1983)  Pages:83-107
Author(s): M Lachuk
Date Published: 1983
Page Count: 25
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Following an examination of the traditional open trial policy and the public interests it is meant to serve, this paper critically examines California's practice of denying public access to child custody cases involving child abuse and neglect.
Abstract: Deeply embedded in common law traditions, the open trial policy is applicable to both criminal and civil cases. In two recent cases, the U.S. Supreme Court held that any order denying public access to criminal trials must be justified by an overriding policy or State interest and that the closure order must be tailored to serve the State interest. Public interests in open trial include the fair and effective administration of justice and preservation of the first amendment right to attend trials. Under the California statute, the only exceptions to mandatory closure of child abuse-related custody cases are when public attendance is specifically requested by the parent or child or when other parties have a legitmate interest in the case. An examination of the competing interests suggests that denial of public access in these termination and dependency hearings is both unnecessary and unjustified. Trial judges always have discretionary authority to limit public access for the proper administration of justice or the protection of the parties. Thus, the present statutory scheme should be reformed. Included are 252 footnotes.
Index Term(s): Abusing parents; California; Child abuse; Child custody; Closed trials; Critiques; Juvenile dependency and neglect; State laws; Trial procedures; US Supreme Court decisions; Voir dire
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.