Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. J.P.
224 Cal. App. 4th 354
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- A.L., a 15-year-old dependent child, challenged media access to her dependency hearings.
- Presiding judge Nash issued a Blanket Order stating press shall be allowed access unless there is a reasonable likelihood of harm to the child’s best interests.
- The order also allowed objections by any party and required a showing of potential harm before excluding the press.
- The Times attended hearings; objections were raised by A.L.’s counsel and others, and a tentative ruling permitted press presence at a preliminary adjudication.
- A.L. sought review of the access decision; the court granted amicus briefs and considered The Times a real party in interest.
- The court ultimately held the Blanket Order conflicts with §346 and Rule 5.530 and reversed the access order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Blanket Order conflicts with §346 and Rule 5.530 | A.L. argues the Blanket Order improperly overrides discretion of the court under §346. | The Times argues blanket access aligns with historical aims to encourage press involvement under §346. | Yes; Blanket Order invalid, conflicts with §346 and Rule 5.530. |
| Whether the access order is appealable and timely | A.L. contends the order is appealable as a judgment-like intermediate ruling. | Times contends the order is appealable as an intermediate matter affecting rights. | Appealable and timely from dispositional order; but reverse on merits. |
| Whether The Times is a real party in interest | Times had a direct interest in access to the proceedings. | No objection from A.L. prevented designation as real party in interest. | Times designated as real party in interest. |
| What standard governs admission of press to hearings | Burden on objector to show harm; presumption of openness per Blanket Order. | Court should balance interests case-by-case under §346. | Burden to show harm lies with objecting party; balance done by court under §346. |
| Whether the court properly balances confidentiality with public access | Public access serves governance and transparency under press rights. | Preserving privacy of minors and safety is paramount in dependency cases. | Statute favors presumptively private hearings; Blanket Order misreads statutory balance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brian W. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.3d 618 (1978) (press attendance authorized per discretion to admit 'direct and legitimate interest')
- San Bernardino County Dept, of Public Social Services v. Superior Court, 232 Cal.App.3d 188 (1991) (press may attend under §346 balancing best interests and privacy)
- In re Megan B., 235 Cal.App.3d 942 (1991) (dependency rights and appealability in confidentiality contexts)
- In re Brittany S., 17 Cal.App.4th 1399 (1993) (§906 review and intermediate rulings in dependency cases)
- Sjoberg v. Hastorf, 33 Cal.2d 116 (1948) (collateral matters and finality for appealability)
- Lopez v. Brown, 217 Cal.App.4th 1114 (2013) (limits on §906 review for interim orders; final judgment focus)
- In re Castro, 243 Cal.App.2d 402 (1966) (illustrative of appellate review scope in dependency context)
- Lechowick, In re Lechowick (1998) (journalists’ access under special proceedings in context of pending case)
- In re Keisha T., In re Keisha T. (1995) (special access applications and finality considerations)
- Melinda K. v. Superior Court, 116 Cal.App.4th 1147 (2004) (timeliness and scope of appeal in dependency proceedings)