Today the Oregon Supreme Court issued its opinion In the Matter of C.P.,[1] a juvenile delinquency case involving a 15-year-old “youth”[2] who snuck into my client’s bedroom in the early hours of the morning, climbed on top of her while she slept and smashed her in the face with a mallet. In representing the victim in the delinquency proceeding, I filed a motion on behalf of the victim to inspect the juvenile court file under ORS 419A.258, which allows anyone to view the file if it serves a legitimate purpose.
Despite having a host of rights as a crime victim, my client was the only person involved in the case who was out of the loop and did not have access to any of the materials in the case. Due to the privacy interests of the person who assaulted her, she was not allowed to see the police report, see the youth’s psychological evaluation to see if he was an ongoing risk to her, hear what the youth’s father (client’s landlord) said about his son’s mental health history or anything else about the case. The Deputy District Attorney could tell her only limited information about the case and could inform her about court dates, but otherwise was handcuffed by the Juvenile code. The Oregon Constitution affords crime victims the right to “meaningful participation” at the dispositional hearing (read “sentencing”), but without any of this information, she felt like she had nothing to inform her proposed statements to the court or her level of safety moving forward. Indeed, her fear of the youth intensified from this lack of information.
Judge Amy Holmes-Hehn granted my motion, allowing her to view the police report, the psychological evaluation and the juvenile court counselor’s report, but with a protective order restricting further dissemination and use of the information. It was a well-reasoned opinion that followed the statute. When the youth’s attorney appealed the decision, I was confident it would be affirmed, however when the Court denied my client’s request to intervene in the case so we could have a voice distinct from the State, we were less certain.
In September of 2022, the Court of Appeals reversed Judge Holmes-Hehn.[3] Justices Mooney, Shorr and Pagan explained that the statutory requirement of “legitimate need” meant a moving party must demonstrate that disclosure is necessary under the circumstances and otherwise required by law. They opined that it was not necessary for my client to have the records to participate in the hearing. This interpretation of the statute established an impossible standard and essentially rendered the “catch all” provision of the statute meaningless. Unless specifically named in the statue, one would not be able to establish a “legitimate need” for information in the confidential file.[4]
Today’s Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice Bushong, acknowledged the legislative history of the 2013 amendment to the statute that added the “catch all” provision giving juvenile courts “authority and discretion” to allow inspection or copying of records by persons or entities not specifically listed in the statute. Justice Bushong rejected the Court of Appeals interpretation of “legitimate need” that allowed disclosure only if it would be essential to serving a purpose required by law. Instead, the juvenile court, after weighing the statutory factors, is allowed some discretion and if disclosure outweighs the youth’s privacy interests and is consistent with the law the judge may release the records. Ultimately, in my client’s case, the Court said: “Here, the juvenile court did exactly what the legislature intended that juvenile courts should do in weighing the competing interests, limiting disclosure, and entering an appropriate protective order. The juvenile court’s disclosure order in this case was not based on a misinterpretation of ORS 419A.258.”
This win for crime victims swings the pendulum ever so slightly back toward sanity in our infantilizing juvenile justice system. If anyone needs my briefing I am happy to share it.
Thank you to Erin Olson and Rosemary Brewer from Oregon Crime Victims Law Center for authoring the amicus brief at the Supreme Court.
[1] In the Matter of C.P., a Youth. State of Oregon, v. C.P., (A173762).
[2] Oregon goes to great lengths to protect minors who “engage in conduct that if committed by an adult would constitute a crime.” One such protection afforded minors, is the tortuous language participants in juvenile court are forced to utilize, including referring to them as “youths” instead of defendants.
[3] In the Matter of C.P., a Youth. State of Oregon v. C.P., 322 Or. App. 51 (2022).
[4] This is especially true when you take into consideration that the movant does not know what is in the file when asking for access.