Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge halts YouTube livestream to protect child's privacy during review hearing
Summary
During a Zoom review hearing in the High Plains Child Protection Court for Esmeraya Rivera Zuniga, the court stopped a public YouTube livestream after a department representative asked to remove the feed to protect the child's confidentiality; the parties agreed and the hearing continued off the public stream.
Judge Powell paused a public YouTube livestream and moved a review hearing off the public feed in the High Plains Child Protection Court for Esmeraya Rivera Zuniga, cause number 98462-1. The court said the hearing was being conducted by Zoom under a finding of good cause and with the parties' agreement.
The court convened the review hearing and announced that Miss Goodman would make the record. Judge Powell said, "We're conducting this through Zoom under a finding of good cause and agreement of the parties. We're live streaming, and, Miss Goodman is making our record today."
Melinda Palford, speaking for the department of Saint Francis, asked the court to end the public feed: "I'm gonna ask to go off YouTube. I think we have some information that doesn't need to be broadcast to the world." Stacy Zavala, attorney for Esmeraya Rivera Zuniga, agreed, and Shelby Stashi, with CASA, identified herself on the record. The judge then noted that a motion had been made and said, "No objection to stop the livestream to protect the child's confidentiality, privacy rights." The court stopped the public stream and proceeded with the hearing on Zoom without the YouTube broadcast.
The proceeding was described in the record as a review hearing; the transcript identifies additional participants in the waiting room, including Tori Cook (described as the department of Saint Francis permanency specialist), Julie DuBois (noted as a mother for a different Thornburg case), Michelle Silva and Jason Zoll, and others who were asked to rejoin later. The docket referenced a broader calendar but did not specify next dates or further scheduling for this case in the excerpt provided.
No formal roll-call vote was taken; the decision to end the public broadcast was recorded after the court confirmed there were no objections from the parties. The hearing record notes the court's initial public stream and the subsequent decision to remove that stream to protect the child's confidentiality. The review hearing then continued off the public YouTube feed.
Details not specified in the transcript excerpt include the hearing date and any subsequent scheduling or orders entered after the livestream was stopped.
