SECTION 89. Said chapter 119 is hereby further amended by striking out section 38, as so appearing, and inserting in place thereof the following 2 sections: Section 38. All hearings under sections 1 to 38A, inclusive, expect those relating to court orders to not resuscitate or to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment for children in the custody of the department under a care and protection order, shall be closed to the general public. It shall be unlawful to publish the names of persons before the court in any closed hearing. Section38A. In any proceedings related to court orders to not resuscitate or to withdraw life-sustaining medical treatment, the department or the party petitioning for the order shall require: (I) a written opinion from the child’s treating physician, (ii)a written recommendation from the ethics committee of the hospital at which the child is a patient, and (iii) a written second opinion from a physician who is certified in the same medical speciality as the child’s treating physician and who is not affiliated with the hospital at which the child is a patient. The department or the party petitioning for the order shall submit these documents to the court. The commissioner shall determine and make the department’s recommendation to the court. The court shall also seek a recommendation from the child’s parent or guardian. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to make a recommendation to the court on behalf of the child. Any appeal made under this section shall be an interlocutory appeal.
Of note, interlocutory appeals from the Juvenile Court go to the Supreme Judicial Court through a pleading called a “Writ of Superintendence” pursuant to G.L.c.211 Sec. 3 and are expedited proceedings.
I consider this to be a positive change – but would prefer all Juvenile Court proceedings to be open to the public and press unless a Motion to Impound is brought and allowed, similar to proceedings in the Probate and Family Court. The closed proceedings in Juvenile Court too often facilitate sloppy lawyering and bias; open proceedings function like disinfectant.
This new law would have made it harder to “pull the plug” on Haleigh Poutre – a good thing. Were this new law then in place, it would also, hopefully, have triggered an early review of her case [to be discussed in more detail as part of the discussion of the many and substantial amendments to G.L. c. 119 Sec. 51A], specifically Section ( r) where regional clinical teams are to be established that review cases where 3 or more 51A reports are filed on the same family within a three month period.
I will be doing a series of posts on H4905; while I have analyzed it in full, posting all the changes to the law, and my opinions of those changes in ONE post would, I think, result in a turgid and overlong post.
Bibliography for this post:
1. The full text of the Governor’s Press Release/signing statement on H4905: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=go…
2. The full text of the new law: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bill…
