A growing number of states are lifting the veil on child-abuse cases, recognizing that the court secrecy intended to protect young victims also shields child-welfare systems from public scrutiny and potential reform. Hawaii lawmakers have the opportunity to advance this important cause via Senate Bill 2002, which balances the importance of preserving confidentiality in some cases with the need for greater disclosure overall.

A 2012 report by the University of San Diego law school’s Children’s Advocacy Institute and the child advocacy group First Star highlighted how a culture of secrecy across the country hampers efforts to stem child abuse, especially in severe cases where children are killed or nearly die. Information that could prevent future tragedies remains shrouded behind restrictive disclosure laws, according to the report, which gave a letter grade to each state and called for nationwide reforms.

"Systemic shortcomings can’t be fixed if no one sees what they are," Amy Harfeld, national policy director and senior staff attorney for CAI, said when the report came out. "Holding states accountable through transparency and public disclosure will promote public debate and lead to reforms that will better safeguard all children."

Hawaii earned a B in that report, criticized for having vague and unclear policies regarding the release of information in a broad category of cases and for closing court proceedings in child-abuse cases to everyone except for the individuals directly involved.

SB 2002 would change that, opening court hearings to the public that involve children whose parents are accused of neglect or abuse. One of the bill’s biggest advocates is a father once accused of child abuse. He believes that the case against him would have been thrown out much earlier had it been heard in open court.

The bill has many opponents as well, including judges and social workers who insist that families in these cases need privacy to heal and that children, especially, could be traumatized and stigmatized by a public proceeding.

These are not concerns to take lightly, but neither are they insurmountable. SB 2002 allows the option of closing the proceeding if the public nature of the case would cause the child severe emotional distress, an important exception that would be left to the discretion of the judge.

First Star, as part of its national policy advocacy on behalf of abused and neglected children, holds that juvenile court hearings in child abuse or neglect cases should be presumptively open, with judicial discretion to close the court based on the best interests of the child or at the request of the child’s lawyer or representative. This broader leeway gives Hawaii lawmakers guidance to tighten SB 2002 if they are leery of the bill otherwise.

Twenty-two states now permit such open courts, and Hawaii should pursue this option as well.

Confidentiality is important in child-abuse cases — for the people who are mandated by law to report suspected abuse, for the families who want to avoid unwarranted public inquisition and especially for the abused and neglected children, who deserve our utmost protection.

However, blanket confidentiality doesn’t always serve the best interests of the child. Sometimes it is the system that has failed the child, along with his or her parents or other adults. Exposing these flaws and galvanizing reform is impossible when the public has no idea what is going on.