In the Interest of M.B.
2003 Pa. Super. 76, 31 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2326, 819 A.2d 59 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
While juvenile dependency proceedings are subject to a rebuttable constitutional presumption of openness, courts possess inherent power to control access and may deny public access if the party seeking closure demonstrates that closure serves a compelling governmental interest and no less restrictive means exists to serve that interest.
Facts:
- On July 15, 2001, the 8-year-old sister of M.B. and J.B. was murdered.
- On August 7, 2001, M.B. (12 years old) and J.B. (7 years old) were removed from their parents’ custody and placed into foster care by the Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau (WCCB).
- Soon thereafter, the WCCB filed a petition alleging that M.B. and J.B. were dependents because they lacked proper parental control or supervision and adequate physical, mental, or emotional care.
- In the ensuing months, local media published numerous articles about the homicide, M.B. and J.B.'s parents' efforts to regain custody, alleged theft from a funeral expense fund, and a sexual relationship between the alleged perpetrator, Charles Koschalk, and M.B.
- In many of these media reports, M.B. and J.B.'s names were used.
Procedural Posture:
- The Westmoreland County Children’s Bureau (WCCB) filed a petition in the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County (trial court), alleging M.B. and J.B. were dependents.
- During the juvenile dependency hearings, PG Publishing Company d/b/a The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PG Publishing) filed a motion to intervene and a motion to open the proceedings to the press and the general public.
- The trial court granted PG Publishing's motion to intervene.
- On May 13, 2002, the trial court denied PG Publishing’s motion to open the proceedings.
- PG Publishing appealed the trial court's denial to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the constitutional presumption of openness apply to juvenile dependency proceedings, and if so, may a court close such proceedings to the press and general public when there is a compelling governmental interest that cannot be served by less restrictive means?
Opinions:
Majority - Klein, J.
Yes, the constitutional presumption of openness applies to juvenile dependency proceedings, but a court may close such proceedings to the press and general public when the party seeking closure demonstrates a compelling governmental interest that cannot be served by less restrictive means. The court first established that Article I, Section 11 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states that "All Courts shall be open," applies to juvenile dependency proceedings, thus creating a constitutional presumption of openness. However, this right to public access is not absolute, as courts retain an inherent power to control access to their proceedings to protect privacy rights or the integrity of investigations. To overcome the presumption of openness, the party seeking closure must demonstrate that (1) closure serves a compelling governmental interest, and (2) no less restrictive means to serve that interest exists, with 'good cause' shown if opening the proceedings would cause a 'clearly defined and serious injury.' In this case, the court found that the WCCB and guardians ad litem successfully demonstrated a compelling interest in protecting the privacy rights of M.B. and J.B. This interest was based on the psychological and emotional harm that further publicity would cause to the children, who had already suffered significant trauma and public exposure. The court also noted that the legislative intent in Pennsylvania's Juvenile Act generally keeps dependency proceedings closed. The argument that the children's privacy was already compromised by prior media coverage was rejected, as existing publicity only heightened their need for privacy and protection from further stress and stigmatization. Regarding less restrictive means, the court found that alternatives suggested by PG Publishing, such as controlling or limiting references to confidential material, were impractical and unfeasible given the complex and extraordinarily sensitive nature of all information involved in the proceedings. The court determined that no portion of the proceedings could be opened without revealing highly personal details of the children's lives. Therefore, total closure was deemed the only means to adequately serve the children's compelling privacy interests. The trial court's denial of the motion to open was thus affirmed.
Analysis:
This case establishes an important precedent by extending the constitutional presumption of public access to juvenile dependency proceedings in Pennsylvania, an area traditionally held private. Simultaneously, it carves out a significant exception, affirming the court's inherent power to protect vulnerable minors. The decision provides a clear, two-part constitutional test for closure, balancing the public's right to know with the compelling interest in safeguarding children's privacy and well-being. This framework will guide future courts in determining access to sensitive family court matters, requiring a careful, individualized assessment of harm and the availability of less restrictive alternatives before closing proceedings.
