Why are the privacy interests of children important in family law cases? A case cited below kind of highlights the need for courts to have the ability to receive information (perhaps from a GAL) in the privacy of chambers with the attorneys (in Illinois, called a “pretrial conference). The reason for this need of hearings, interviews or meetings in chambers is to protect the privacy and personal interests of the minor children, and to not have perhaps sensitive information about a case displayed to the public in open court. Illinois quite effectively acts to protect these privacy interests, in my experience. Most judges will often hear reports from the GAL, or have meetings with the GAL and attorneys, in chambers so that very private information about children are not disclosed in open court.
| Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Citation: 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 4 Opinion Date: January 30, 2025 Judge: Lidia Stiglich Areas of Law: Civil Procedure, Family Law |
| Leanne Nester and Cody Gamble divorced in 2022, with custody arrangements for their two minor children outlined in the divorce decree. Gamble later moved to modify custody, and during the proceedings, a press organization requested media access, which the district court granted. Nester moved for reconsideration, seeking to close the hearing to protect sensitive information about the children, including medical and Child Protective Services records. The district court denied her motion, interpreting a previous case, Falconi v. Eighth Judicial District Court, as precluding closure of family law proceedings.
The district court concluded it lacked discretion to close the hearing, stating there was no statute or rule allowing it. Nester then sought writ relief from the Supreme Court of Nevada, arguing that the district court misinterpreted Falconi and failed to consider her privacy interests and those of her children. The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in its interpretation of Falconi. The court clarified that Falconi does not prohibit the closure of family law proceedings but requires a case-by-case analysis to determine if closure is warranted. The court outlined that closure is permissible if it serves a compelling interest, there is a substantial probability that the interest could be harmed without closure, and no alternatives to closure would adequately protect the interest. The Supreme Court of Nevada granted Nester’s petition, directing the district court to vacate its order denying the motion to close the hearing and to reconsider the motion using the test outlined in Falconi. The court emphasized the need for the district court to properly apply the factors to determine whether closure is justified. |