Berkeley

OP-ED: Journalism in the Best Interest of the Child

Published

12 years ago

March 18, 2014

By Daniel Heimpel

A fortnight ago, the appeals court for the Second Appellate District in California invalidated a court order that had eased media access to Los Angeles County’s otherwise closed juvenile dependency hearings.

This ends two years of intermittent sunshine on the complicated functioning’s of the largest child welfare system in the nation, and perhaps the world.

The appeals court decision hinges on how much discretion a judge should have in barring reporters, and has reignited the long-simmering debate about the costs and benefits of allowing reporters to be present at hearings where minors fates are decided.

While the March 3 ruling seemingly closed the door on the media, it also sets up the possibility of two developments: an appeal to the California State Supreme Court, or new legislation allowing greater media access to dependency proceedings not only in Los Angeles, but across the state.

In my opinion, the dispute could and should be resolved through legislation that promotes a new, higher journalism: one practiced in the best interest of the child. .

A Judge’s Discretion and the Burden of Proof

In February of 2012, a week after Michael Nash, the Presiding Judge of Los Angeles’ Juvenile Court, had issued his now invalidated order, a reporter and a lawyer from the Los Angeles Times showed up at a hearing involving a 15-year-old girl and her four younger siblings. The girl had been removed from her parents by the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) after her father had allegedly committed “brutal domestic violence” against her and her mother.

It was a tense and uncertain time at the Edelman Children’s Court in Monterey Park California, a sprawling labyrinth of court-rooms and offices set atop a hill where judges and lawyers change the life trajectories of as many as 30,000 children a year. Like many other juvenile courts that had allowed press in, the first few weeks of openness in Los Angeles were met with a herd of reporters keen on easy access.

The courts are already chaotic. Children, like A.L. and her siblings, are not alone in the hearing rooms. Attorneys, bailiffs, court referees, clerks, guardians ad litem and an intermittent cast of family members and social workers are all part of the swirling tide of professionals, paraprofessionals and consumers that make up the county’s vast child welfare system.

The Children’s Law Center of California (CLC) represents every child in Los Angeles County: its 100 lawyers average a caseload of 300 each. From the start, CLC had opposed media access. And in those strange days after Nash issued his order, CLC attorneys were throwing up objections to almost any journalist in the room.

It was through her CLC lawyer that A.L. objected to the Times’ presence.

Almost a month later, the judge in A.L.’s case ruled that the Times would be allowed into the court-room, despite CLC’s assertion that “the child is at an age (15) where children are extremely sensitive to the possibility of their private information being disseminated to others.”

A.L.’s lawyers filed a writ to override the court’s decision, which was denied, setting it up for appeal and the decision in A.L.’s favor published on March 3.

That decision hinges on the concept of judicial discretion and burden of proof. Judge Nash’s order compelled court referees to allow the press in, and only force them out if someone could show a “reasonable likelihood that such access will be harmful to the children’s best interest.”

In his original order, Nash cited the California Welfare and Institutions Code (which governs the dependency system) and two cases – Brian W. v. Superior Court and San Bernardino County Dept. of Public Social Services v. Superior Court – which both dealt with media access to juvenile proceedings.

In 1991, the San Bernardino Sun newspaper requested access to the juvenile court records and files of a sibling group, which had been removed from their home under awful, headline-grabbing circumstances. The attorneys for the siblings objected. Ultimately the court denied the Sun access to the records, but used its discretion to admit the reporter to the hearing under certain conditions.

The appellate court struck down that ruling, but clarified the law around media access significantly:

“Members of the press are persons having a direct and legitimate interest in the work of the court and may be permitted to attend such proceedings in the juvenile court’s discretion under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 346.”

The problem is that Section 346 can be read both as exclusionary and inclusionary to the press. The section reads:

“Unless requested by a parent or guardian and consented or requested by the minor concerning whom the petition has been filed, the public shall not be admitted to a juvenile court hearing.” But, “the judge or referee may nevertheless admit such persons as he deems to have a direct and legitimate interest in the particular case or work of the court.”

While, A.L. had a reasonable objection to the Los Angeles Times presence during the February 2012 hearing, and the Times’ attorney and reporter may have shown insensitivity by not respecting her wishes, it is unclear where judicial discretion had been infringed upon. The judge in that courtroom had the ultimate discretion to either uphold or deny the objection.

The appellate decision seems to argue that the overall environment of the court, where the presiding judge had issued an order bending the culture towards openness, was one where individual court referees were inhibited from exercising the discretion that code section and case law give them.

“We agree that press attendance at dependency proceedings may be allowed, and that the legislature intended to encourage it, as Brian W. tells us,” the majority wrote in this month’s opinion. “But both Brian W. and San Bernardino are also clear that press admittance to dependency hearings involves an exercise of the juvenile court’s discretion in the context of the unique facts of each case.”

Further, the majority opinion looks to shift the burden of proof on access back to the press.

“The press must ultimately persuade the court that the balance of competing interests should be weighed in its favors – that is, there is no reasonable likelihood that access will be harmful to the child’s best interests.”

It is on this question, the likelihood of harm to a child, that the entire debate falls, and where one can discern an opportunity to bridge the gap between needed privacy for child victims and the social change transparency can bring.

Cross posted with the Chronicle of Social Change. Read the full story here.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Lobbyists Push for Better HIV/AIDS Care

Don't Miss

Vallejo Nursing School to Open at Touro University

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Arts and Culture

Farwest Region Deltas Celebrate Centennial With “September Breakfast” Honoring Vivian Osborne Marsh

The region was established in 1925 under the leadership of Vivian Osborne Marsh, who became its first Regional Director. Marsh was a pioneering scholar and civic leader, earning recognition as the first Black woman to receive both a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in anthropology from UC Berkeley.

Published

5 months ago

September 14, 2025

Oakland Post

Farwest Regional Director, Kimberly Usher, Mayor Barbara Lee, US Representative Lateefah Simon, and Farwest Regional Representative, Radiya Ajibade. Photo courtesy of Farwest Regional Photographer Vicki P. Love.

By Antoinette Porter

Hundreds of members of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., and their guests gathered at the Martin Luther King Jr. Student Union at the University of California, Berkeley, to mark the 100th anniversary of the sorority’s Farwest Region.

Marsh went on to serve as Delta Sigma Theta’s 7th National President, where she launched the sorority’s National Library Project to expand access to books in underserved Black communities in the South. During her presidency, the organization also became a prominent voice in the civil rights movement, lobbying Congress to pass anti-lynching legislation.

Bak in the Bay Area, Marsh devoted her career to advancing educational opportunities, mentoring young people, and strengthening community life. That commitment continues to shape the region, which supports initiatives in education, social justice, and economic development. Current projects include raising scholarship funds for students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, voter education campaigns, and health and wellness programs.

A century after its founding, the Farwest Region of Delta Sigma Theta remains active across California and other western states, carrying forward Marsh’s vision of service and advocacy.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Arts and Culture

Cal Performances Presents Angélique Kidjo & Yo-Yo Ma in Sarabande Africaine at UC Berkeley Greek Theatre on Aug. 30

On Saturday, Aug. 30, the pair will debut the Bay Area premiere of Sarabande Africaine, joined by pianist Thierry Vaton, percussionist David Donatien, and special guest Sinkane. The program illuminates centuries of musical interplay between African traditions and Western classical forms, using the Baroque sarabande dance, and its African ancestor, the Congolese spirit dance Zarabanda, as a gateway to exploring the deep, interconnected roots of global music.

Published

6 months ago

August 25, 2025

Oakland Post

Angelique Kidjo and Yo-Yo Ma. Wikimedia photos.

By Carla Thomas

On Labor Day weekend two of the world’s most celebrated musicians and cultural ambassadors, Grammy Award–winning vocalist Angélique Kidjo and legendary cellist Yo-Yo Ma join forces for an evening of music, history, and cultural dialogue at UC Berkeley’s historic Hearst Greek Theatre.

Both Kidjo and Ma have built careers not only as great performers but as passionate advocates for cultural understanding. Sarabande Africaine is as much a conversation about shared heritage as it is a musical performance, blending genres, geographies, and histories.

“Every day there are moments when all of us can feel we are on the inside of something and also when we feel we are on the outside of something,” said Yo-Yo Ma. “To be able to understand both at the same time and oscillate between the two gives us a larger perspective on the world.”

“If your mind is open, and there is no fear, it’s easier to listen, and to question yourself,” said Kidjo.

The upcoming performance is presented within Cal Performances’ Illuminations: “Exile & Sanctuary” series for the 2025–26 season. The production explores exile as more than just physical displacement, but a disruption in identity and belonging, while sanctuary represents both refuge and the creative space where new connections and communities can take shape.

Cal Performances’ Illuminations bridges performances with UC Berkeley’s academic research, pairing the arts with conversations about urgent global issues.

Kidjo’s continued partnership with Cal Performances includes her 2021–22 artist-in-residence, premiering her music-theater work Yemandja, set in 19th-century West Africa during the transatlantic slave trade.

She also participated in the Bias in Our Algorithms and Society panel alongside campus leaders like Jennifer Chayes, and joined the Black Studies Collaboratory for a dialogue on music, diaspora, and the world.

She has since returned to Berkeley for multiple performances, most recently in 2024 at Zellerbach Hall.

Yo-Yo Ma’s history with Cal Performances spans decades, beginning in 1997. One notable project includes the 2018 performance of Bach’s complete cello suites at the Greek Theatre, a testament to his devotion to creating “transformative concert experiences in iconic spaces.”

For tickets and more information, visit calperformances.org.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

The Case Against Probate: False Ruling Invalidates Black Professor’s Estate Plan, Ignoring 28-Year Relationship

Zakiya Folami Jendayi, beneficiary of Head’s estate, states that “The errors, ranging from misstatements of fact, omissions of critical evidence, and reliance on false arguments and testimony, formed the basis of Judge Sandra K. Bean’s ruling against me, Dr. Head’s previous student, mentee, sorority sister and long-time friend,and despite the fact that I was her chosen, power of attorney, Advanced Healthcare Directive agent, trustee, executor and sole beneficiary.”

Published

8 months ago

June 17, 2025

Oakland Post

Dr. Head and Zakiya Jendayi, Their 28 year old friendship was ignored by Probate Court Judge Bean who ruled in favor of Dr. Head's estranged sister's. One sister could not identify Head, in a picture shown while under oath.

By Tanya Dennis

Part 5

In a shocking miscarriage of justice, a California probate judge issued a Statement of Decision on March 28 riddled with numerous documented errors that invalidated the estate plan of esteemed Black Studies professor Dr. Laura Dean Head.

The ruling from the Alameda County Superior Court’s probate division in Berkeley has sparked outrage from advocates for probate reform, community members and civil rights activists, who say the decision reflects deep flaws in the probate system, blatant disregard for due process, and the wishes of the ancestors. Judge Sandra Bean’s ruling reflects a repeated outcome seen in Black and Brown communities.

Reading court transcripts, the most egregious violations according to Jendayi reveal a pivotal point in the ruling that rested on a letter from Dr. Stephan Sarafian of Kaiser Permanente, who misidentified Dr. Head as male, misstated the day, month, and year, and asserted Head lacked capacity.

Under cross-examination, he reversed his opinion and admitted under oath that he never conducted a mental evaluation, did not diagnose Dr. Head with incapacity, did not write the letter, and stated he merely signed it “in case it was needed in the future.”

Despite Sarafian’s perjury, on Oct. 17, 2024, the California Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision that relied on Sarafian’s discredited letter to invalidate Dr. Head’s estate plan, ignored Jendayi’s requests to impeach his testimony and dismiss Sarafian’s testimony and letter that both the Kaiser Grievance Department and the Medical Board of California denounced.

In her ruling, Judge Bean agreed with the false argument by attorney Leahy, which alleged that Jendayi provided the names of the beneficiaries to Head’s estate attorney, Elaine Lee. Bean made this decision despite Lee’s sworn testimony that Dr. Head had met with her alone, behind closed doors, and made the independent decision to leave her estate to Jendayi.

According to court records, Judge Bean reversed the burden of proof in the undue influence claim before any of Jendayi’s witnesses testified, forcing Jendayi to disprove allegations that were never substantiated by witnesses or records.

Bean ruled: “Respondent took Dr. Head to her apartment where she assumed complete control of Dr. Head’s day-to-day care, medical care, and all aspects of her life.” Jendayi proved that statement was false.

Bean also ruled that Respondent controlled Dr. Head’s necessities of life, food, and hospice care, despite zero testimony or documentation supporting any of those claims.

The court reduced Jendayi’s role to “a friend who, at best, cared for Dr. Head during the final two months,” totally ignoring 28 years of friendship, testimony, evidence, letters of recommendation, emails, and medical records.

Exhibits confirming Dr. Head’s intent and capacity, including the discredited medical letter, Exhibit 90, were omitted or misrepresented in the judge’s final decision.

Jendayi says, “The injustice within the probate justice system is devastating, traumatizing and financially depleting. It’s nothing short of legalized crime!”

Jendayi is now appealing to the Supreme Court of the U.S. with a petition citing denial of due process, judicial misconduct, and systemic bias in probate courts.