The State of Youth Justice 2026

U.S. child welfare systems often mistake poverty for neglect.

It is time to reconsider the orthodoxy of closed juvenile and family court sessions by letting some sunshine in.

The first juvenile court in Chicago was open to the public, but over time many states closed sessions.

In 1967, the Supreme Court introduced the concept of due process into juvenile court in In Re Gault. Justice Fortas observed that the excesses of the Star Chamber were a trifle in comparison to those of our juvenile courts. Comparing the excesses of English monarchs to what occurred in closed juvenile sessions might seem hyperbolic, but the harm done to youth and families in the name of good intent was palpable.

We’ve made progress, but promoting a culture of greater transparency furthers the goals of systemic accountability, more rigor in fact-finding, and adherence to burdens of proof— proof beyond a reasonable doubt in youth justice cases and clear and convincing evidence in termination of parental right cases.

Closed sessions enhance the danger of cheating the evidence by making comparative judgements about “best interest,” criminalizing and conflating poverty with neglect. Due process equals best interest.

Opening the doors or peeking inside would also educate the public about the complexity of the issues explored in this chapter and raise the level of practice of lawyers and jurists.

Opening or closing the doors is hardly a radical proposal. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) passed a resolution in 2005 recommending that dependency cases be presumptively open.

This is not an either-or proposition. We can presumptively open the doors—as twenty states have done—by creating guard rails that balance privacy and public interest.

Safeguards which would prevent stigmatizing youth or their families include precluding the publication of the names of parties and not allowing juvenile court records to be disseminated. Judges can also craft casebased orders regarding court access to particularly sensitive material. No state which has opened its doors has reversed its policy.

Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.