Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Child Protection Court Privacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Presiding judge grants motion to remove YouTube livestream during High Plains Child Protection Court review hearing
Summary
At a High Plains Child Protection Court review hearing conducted by Zoom, the presiding judge granted a motion to end the YouTube livestream to protect a child's privacy. The motion was made by a regional attorney for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and was not opposed.
The High Plains Child Protection Court granted a motion to end the YouTube livestream of a review hearing in the case of Veriberto Sanchez Estrada, citing privacy for the child. The hearing was conducted by Zoom under a finding of good cause and with the agreement of the parties.
Pamela Ferguson, regional attorney for the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, told the court, "I also have a motion that we go off YouTube for the privacy and protection of private matters for the child." The presiding judge responded that confidential matters were present and said, "I know that we do have some, sort of confidential things to discuss. So I'll find the motion has been made and not opposed." The court record was made by a court reporter identified in the proceeding as Miss Taylor.
Court staff initially noted the hearing was being live streamed while also confirming it was being conducted via Zoom. Present on the hearing record were Heather Eubanks, permanency specialist, and Will Bratton, supervisor from Saint Francis Ministries, who were listed as present with Ms. Ferguson. The transcript indicates the presiding judge made an on-the-record finding of good cause for holding the proceeding by videoconference and then granted the unopposed motion to end the YouTube livestream.
The action removed public streaming of the proceeding from YouTube to protect private matters concerning the child named in the review hearing. The transcript does not record a roll-call vote; rather, the judge noted the motion was "not opposed." No further procedural directions about how the livestream would be ended or whether the public record would be archived were specified in the provided excerpt.
The matter continued as a review hearing for Veriberto Sanchez Estrada with the parties and permanency specialists present; additional substantive matters discussed after the privacy motion are not included in the supplied transcript excerpt.
