A blanket order by the chief judge of the 1st Judicial District that blocks public access to all domestic relations and probate case files because of staff limitations is contrary to the time-honored concept that American courts function best in the open.
Indeed, transparency is the most powerful safeguard available against excessively arbitrary government and key to holding government accountable.
The 1st Judicial District includes Jefferson and Gilpin counties. The order by Chief Judge Brooke Jackson is ominous because it creates a precedent for closing other court files to the public. A similar order was issued last August in the 17th Judicial District (Adams and Broomfield counties) and last month in the 18th District (Arapahoe, Douglas, Elbert and Lincoln counties).
Citing a directive signed by Colorado Chief Justice Mary Mullarkey as the basis for his action, Jackson signed his blanket order late last year. A court posting proclaimed: “Effective December 1, 2005, domestic case files and probate case files will only be released to a party in the case or an attorney of record.”
Jackson noted that the Supreme Court directive issued last April lists 23 kinds of information that must be removed from case files because of federal or state law, court rules or orders, and case law. Among them are probation files, Social Security numbers, deposited wills, sex assault victims’ names, drug/alcohol treatment data, paternity tests, genetic testing, HIV/AIDS testing, medical records, mental health records and adoption records.
Jackson noted that the high court directive allowed closing files that would otherwise be open if a court lacked the resources to purge confidential information, and so he did.
The irony is that the directive cited grew out of five years of work by the Supreme Court’s Public Access Committee. Sounds more like public non-access to us.
Steve Zansberg, an attorney representing the Colorado Press Association, argues that Jackson’s blanket sealing order is contrary to the public interest. Although many people consider divorce a private matter, Zansberg notes that “this is two parties asking the court to dissolve their marriage and property. That’s an exercise of judicial authority, and the public has a presumptive right to know how judges act.”
Precisely. Divorce and probate records should be open – not to titillate the public with private details but to give an indication if judges are being fair and competent. Closing such files by claiming lack of funds is a cop-out that the public shouldn’t tolerate.
