Minor, In re

• Decision Date: 15 November 1990
• Docket Number: Nos. 4-90-0167,4-90-0168,s. 4-90-0167
• Citation: 205 Ill.App.3d 480,563 N.E.2d 1069
• Parties: , 150 Ill.Dec. 942, 59 USLW 2388, 18 Media L. Rep. 1721 In the Interest of a MINOR, whose Name is omitted. (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. The Champaign News-Gazette, a Delaware Corporation, Appellant). In the Interest of a MINOR, whose Name is omitted. (The People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. The Champaign News-Gazette, a Delaware Corporation, Appellant).
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1069

563 N.E.2d 1069

205 Ill.App.3d 480, 150 Ill.Dec. 942,

59 USLW 2388,

18 Media L. Rep. 1721

In the Interest of a MINOR, whose Name is omitted. (The

People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. The Champaign News-Gazette, a Delaware Corporation, Appellant).

In the Interest of a MINOR, whose Name is omitted. (The

People of the State of Illinois, Petitioner-Appellee, v. The Champaign News-Gazette, a Delaware Corporation, Appellant).

Nos. 4-90-0167, 4-90-0168.

Appellate Court of Illinois Fourth District.

Nov. 15, 1990.

Traci E. Nally, Meyer, Capel, Hirschfeld, Muncy, Jahn & Aldeen, P.C., Champaign, for appellant.

No appearance for petitioner-appellee.

Stephen R. Pacey, Pacey & Pacey Lawyers, P.C., Paxton, for guardian ad litem.

Justice McCULLOUGH delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an interlocutory appeal by the Champaign News-Gazette, Inc. (News), from an order excluding the News from the juvenile proceedings involving the two minors in these cases. The News argues the trial court erred in excluding its reporters from the proceeding pursuant to section 1-5 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 (Act) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 37, par. 801-5). We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The docket entries in the record reveal the two minors, who were the victims of physical and sexual abuse at the hands of a parent, were taken into shelter care on February 23, 1989. According to the News, one of its reporters was in the courtroom on March 13, 1989, the day scheduled for the adjudicatory hearing for both minors, to report on the proceedings. Upon identifying himself to the trial judge as a reporter for the News, he was ordered to leave the courtroom. The reporter's request for an immediate hearing on the exclusion order was denied.

The News filed a motion for reconsideration of the exclusion order. At a hearing on April 18, 1989, the trial judge stated the court had an obligation to protect minors and there is a policy of confidentiality embodied in section 1-5 of the Act with respect to juvenile proceedings. The judge further noted section 1-5 of the Act provides the media may be admitted to proceedings if, in the opinion of the court, they have a direct interest in the case. Further, the media should make an advance application for admission to juvenile proceedings. Finally, the judge stated the News could be admitted to the proceedings if it agreed not to further reveal the identity of the minors.

Following the hearing on April 18, 1989, an order entitled "CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER ENTERED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 37, SECTION [1-8] AND SECTION [1-5(6) ]" was filed on April 20, 1989. The order stated, pursuant to section 1-5(6) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 37, par. 801-5(6)), "all persons and agencies present in the court for hearings [regarding the two minors] are prohibited and enjoined from further disclosing the minor[s'] identit[ies]." Further, pursuant to section 1-8 of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 37, par. 801-8), all parties to the proceeding were prohibited from disclosing the content or substance of any court record involving the two minors. A written order addressing the issues raised by the News and setting forth the court's decision announced in court on April 18 was filed on January 31, 1990. The News appeals from the order entered on January 31, 1990.

The jurisdiction of this court for appeal purposes is based upon the trial court's order of January 31, 1990. The issues set forth in the appellant's brief are whether advance application to the trial court must be made before being admitted to juvenile court proceedings and whether the News may be excluded from the proceedings if it discloses the identity of the juveniles, even if identity is obtained from other sources. The appellant addresses the January 31, 1990, order in its brief. The failure of the trial court to make specific findings at the March 13, 1989, hearing is waived. We, therefore, address the issues as they pertain to the January 31, 1990, order.

The parties' arguments focus on section 1-5(6) of the Act, which reads as follows:

"The general public except for the news media and the victim shall be excluded from any hearing and, except for the persons specified in this Section, only persons, including representatives of agencies and associations, who in the opinion of the court have a direct interest in the case or in the work of the court shall be admitted to the hearing. However, the court may, for the minor's protection and for good cause shown, prohibit any person or agency present in court from further disclosing the minor's identity." (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 37, par. 801-5(6).)

The News contends this section evidences that juvenile proceedings are open to the media. Specifically, the News argues section 1-5(6) clearly excepts the news media and the victim from the class of the general public. The News argues the term "this Section" refers only to section 1-5(6), not section 1-5. Relying on this analysis of the language in section 1-5(6), the News maintains it is excepted not only from the group of the general public but also from those persons whom the court may exclude if it finds they do not have a direct interest in the case or the work of the court. The News relies on In re Jones (1970), 46 Ill.2d 506, 263 N.E.2d 863, which considered section 1-20(6) of the Juvenile Court Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1969, ch. 37, par. 701-20(6)), predecessor to section 1-5(6), for support.

The News also argues that given the language of section 1-5(6) and the history of juvenile proceedings in Illinois, it has a first amendment right of access to juvenile proceedings. Relying on Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (1986), 478 U.S. 1, 106 S.Ct. 2735, 92 L.Ed.2d 1, the News contends it can only be excluded after a finding that there is an overriding interest essential to preserving higher values. The News further maintains the trial judge's requirement in this case of an advance application for admission has no basis in the Act and is unconstitutional. Finally, the News argues the threat of exclusion, if it discloses the minor's identity, constitutes a prior restraint of the press.

The guardian ad litem for the minors argues the trial court correctly found three classes of persons are mentioned in section 1-5, which concerns "Rights of parties to proceedings": (1) the minor, his parents, guardian or custodian, who are parties respondent; (2) the general public except for the news media and the victim; and (3) except for those persons mentioned in section 1-5, those persons, in the court's opinion, with a direct interest in the case or work of the court. The guardian contends the News' reliance on Jones is misplaced and, further, that historically juvenile proceedings have not been open to the general public.

The guardian distinguishes the cases relied upon by the News by pointing out that it is undisputed that the News did not obtain the minors' identities through common reportorial techniques. Further, the minors involved in these proceedings are victims of physical and sexual abuse, unlike the delinquent minors or criminal defendants involved in the cases the News relies on. Finally, the guardian points out that the United States Supreme Court cases addressing freedom of the press with regard to judicial proceedings have yet to consider this right with regard to juvenile proceedings involving abused or neglected children.

In its reply brief, the News maintains it is not arguing it has an absolute right to be admitted to all juvenile proceedings, or that the well-being of the minors herein is not compelling enough to justify closure of the proceedings. Rather, the News argues that because no request for closure or factual findings supporting closure were made in these cases, the order must be reversed.

We first address the News' construction of section 1-5(6) of the Act. Statutes should be evaluated as a whole and each provision should be construed in connection with every other section and in light of the statute's general purpose. (Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n (1987), 165 Ill.App.3d 235, 247, 117 Ill.Dec. 56, 64, 520 N.E.2d 46, 54.) A reading of section 1-5 in its entirety does not support the News' analysis that the term "this Section" in section 1-5(6) refers only to section 1-5(6). In section 1-5(1) of the Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1989, ch. 37, par. 801-5(1)), the same term, "this Section," is used. To confine the term "this Section" to the paragraph it appears in does not comport with the principles of statutory construction. We find the News' analysis of the language in section 1-5(6) to be without merit.

We now consider the first amendment right of freedom of the press regarding juvenile proceedings. Our analysis begins first with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court on freedom of the press in judicial proceedings. The Court has held that a State may not prohibit a newspaper from publishing any information regarding criminal defendants, juvenile delinquents, and crime victims where the information had been obtained through common reportorial techniques. (Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn (1975), 420 U.S. 469, 95 S.Ct. 1029, 43 L.Ed.2d 328; Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), 427 U.S. 539, 96 S.Ct. 2791, 49 L.Ed.2d 683; Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. District Court (1977), 430 U.S. 308, 97 S.Ct. 1045, 51 L.Ed.2d 355; Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982), 457 U.S. 596, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 73 L.Ed.2d 248.) Further, in Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989), 491 U.S. 524, 109 S.Ct. 2603, 105 L.Ed.2d 443, the Court stated the publication of information lawfully obtained and of public significance cannot be constitutionally punished, absent a need to further a State interest of the highest order. The rationale underlying the Court's decisions is the recognized constitutional right of access to criminal trials, embodied in the first amendment, which the press and the...