For decades, the Family Court system has operated largely behind closed doors. Unlike criminal trials or major civil litigation, which are typically open to the public, proceedings involving children, financial settlements, and adoption are often conducted in private chambers.
This tradition of confidentiality is rooted in a necessary and deeply held value: protecting the privacy and vulnerability of the children and families whose most intimate struggles are laid bare before a judge.
However, this very secrecy has fueled a political push for greater transparency. Critics argue that closed courts breed unaccountability, inconsistency, and a public perception of “secret justice.” This has led to efforts in various jurisdictions to allow journalists and legal bloggers to attend and report on proceedings, even those concerning children and finance. The goal is to strike a difficult, yet essential, political balancing act: increasing public scrutiny to enhance accountability while rigorously preserving the anonymity and privacy of the families involved.
This blog explores where this debate stands today, why transparency matters, and what California families should know.
The Case for the Closed Door: Protecting Vulnerability
The primary rationale for private family court hearings is simple: protection of the child. Family law cases often involve allegations of the most sensitive and damaging nature—domestic violence, child abuse, substance abuse, severe mental health issues, and intimate financial details.
Before examining the transparency movement, it is important to understand why family courts have historically been closed.
A. Protecting Children
Family cases regularly involve:
- Abuse or neglect allegations
- Mental health issues
- Educational or medical records
- Sexual abuse or domestic violence reports
Courts close proceedings to protect children from being identifiable or retraumatized.
B. Sensitive Financial Information
Divorce cases often involve:
- Income disclosures
- Business valuations
- Tax returns
- Asset tracing
- Debts, spending patterns, or financial misconduct
Publicizing these details can harm families or expose them to security risks.
C. Encouraging Candid Testimony
Parents may be more reluctant to testify openly if the proceeding is public, especially about:
- Addiction
- Mental illness
- Domestic violence
- Safety concerns
D. Historical Precedent
Family courts, unlike criminal courts, were built on a therapeutic model — aiming to resolve conflict privately, confidentially, and efficiently.
But that closed-door structure has increasingly come under scrutiny.
The Call for Open Justice: Accountability and Public Confidence
The principle of open justice—that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done—is a cornerstone of modern democracy. Family Courts wield immense power, capable of permanently separating parents from children, making adoption orders, and dividing a lifetime of marital wealth. When such power operates in darkness, it inevitably invites criticism and suspicion.
The Arguments for Transparency:
- Judicial Accountability: Public scrutiny is the best mechanism for ensuring judges and court-appointed professionals (like evaluators and guardians) perform their duties impartially and correctly. Open reporting can highlight inconsistent rulings, systemic delays, or judicial errors, encouraging self-correction and higher quality decision-making within the judiciary.
- Informed Public Debate: Lack of access prevents the public and legislators from understanding how the family justice system truly functions. Transparency allows for more informed policy reform to address critical issues, such as the intersection of poverty and neglect or the inconsistent handling of domestic violence cases.
- Increased Public Confidence: Accusations of “secret justice” lead to public distrust. By allowing accredited reporting, the court can demystify its procedures, provide context for difficult decisions, and ultimately foster greater public confidence in the fairness of the system.
- Educating Litigants: Reporting on judgments and procedures can provide valuable legal education to the public, helping individuals understand their rights and the complex realities of family law before they ever step foot in a courtroom.
States Experimenting with Opening Family Courts
Some states have started pilot projects allowing:
- Accredited journalists
- Members of the bar
- Authorized legal bloggers
- Public observers
… to attend certain family court hearings.
Examples include:
- New York, which allows journalists into certain custody and family offense hearings
- Michigan, exploring open courts with anonymized records
- Texas, permitting expanded courtroom access with judicial discretion
Colorado, where reporters may attend dependency cases with restrictions
Access varies widely, and judges retain authority to close proceedings if necessary.
California’s Current Approach to Family Court Transparency
California remains one of the more protective states, emphasizing privacy and child welfare. Key features:
A. Most Family Proceedings Are Closed
California routinely closes:
- Child custody hearings
- DVRO evidentiary hearings (at the judge’s discretion)
- Dependency (CPS) cases
- Parentage trials
Custody evaluations
B. Media Access Is Limited
Journalists must request permission and the judge decides:
- Whether to allow them in
- What they may report
- Whether anonymity is required
- What portions of the hearing may be observed
C. California Prioritizes Child Safety Over Transparency
Family Code §§ 3020 and 3011 emphasize:
- Safety
- Emotional well-being
- Protection of children and DV survivors
These statutory priorities tend to outweigh transparency arguments.
D. Strong Confidentiality Rules
California tightly protects:
- CPS records
- Child welfare reports
- Psychological evaluations
- Financial statements
- Addresses and contact information
Even redacted versions are often restricted.
The Arguments Against Greater Transparency
A. Exposure of Children’s Trauma
Making custody or abuse hearings public can:
- Invade children’s privacy
- Put sensitive medical or mental health records into public view
- Risk embarrassment, bullying, or emotional distress
B. Weaponization of Public Records
Litigants may:
- Share court reports publicly
- Harass or shame the other parent online
- Expose minors to doxxing or social media attacks
C. Chilling Effect on Victims
Domestic violence survivors may hesitate to:
- Disclose abuse
- Reveal fears
- Seek protective orders
D. Safety Concerns
Public access may put families at risk, especially in:
- DVRO cases
- Stalking cases
- Situations involving threats
- Cases with confidential addresses
E. Misunderstanding of Legal Nuances
Family law is complex. Reporters or bloggers unfamiliar with the field may:
- Misinterpret orders
- Present biased summaries
- Fuel social media outrage
The fear is that transparency becomes sensationalism, not oversight.
Transparency Requires Balance
The question is not whether family courts should be fully open or entirely closed. It is about finding an approach that promotes both fairness and protection.
Families deserve privacy.
Children deserve safety.
The public deserves confidence in the system.
And judges deserve tools that promote trust, not fear.
Minella Law Group Can Help
At Minella Law Group, we help clients navigate the sensitive and often misunderstood world of family litigation with clarity, discretion, and strategic guidance.
📞 Call Minella Law Group today at 619-289-7948 to schedule a confidential consultation with one of our family law specialists. We’ll listen to your concerns, assess the situation, and create a clear strategy tailored to your goals.
📝 Prefer email? Fill out our online contact form and a member of our legal team will get in touch with you promptly.
*Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized guidance on your case, contact a licensed California family law attorney
