Mass. high court weighs media bid for impounded juvenile-court audio in child-death case

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard argument over whether a news organization may obtain an impounded audio recording of a February 2019 juvenile-court hearing in which custody was granted to a father later convicted of killing the child.

The case pits LC Media’s claim of a First Amendment–rooted public right of access against statutory confidentiality for juvenile-court proceedings under chapter 119 and related court rules. In oral argument, counsel for LC Media and for the Department of Children and Families and for the child’s mother disagreed over whether the lower court judge abused her discretion in denying access and whether remand or an order directing disclosure would be appropriate.

“We must not allow public institutions to hide behind the privacy rights of individuals in order to evade public scrutiny and critique,” attorney Jennifer LaManna told the court on behalf of appellant LC Media, arguing that the lower court “abused her discretion” by failing to analyze the specific privacy interests and by not balancing those interests against the public’s right to know. LaManna emphasized that her client had limited its request to the audio of the February 2019 proceeding: “My client initially filed his motion pro se, but was specifically seeking access to the audio for the February 2019 proceeding.”

Counsel for the Department of Children and Families, Kristen Braithwaite, asked the court to affirm the lower court’s denial, saying the threshold issue is whether the appellant showed good cause under the uniform rules of impoundment. “There is only 1 question before you today, and that is whether the lower court abused its discretion in finding that appellant did not meet its burden of showing good cause to pierce the veil of confidentiality,” Braithwaite said, pointing to the statutory confidentiality scheme for juvenile records and to standing order 2-9, Rule 7, and Rule 11 as governing authorities. She argued that even tragic outcomes do not automatically extinguish privacy interests and that the existing statutes and case law direct a narrow balancing test in juvenile matters.

Andrew Hoff, counsel for the appellee mother, told the court the mother continues to have privacy interests in information the Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) described as “too intimate to disclose,” and urged the court to affirm the lower court’s denial. Hoff also said proposals for redaction or line-by-line segregation “would work an unreasonable burden on a parent” and would impermissibly shift the burden to the mother to identify private material.

All parties and several justices discussed possible remedies if the high court found the lower court’s analysis deficient. LaManna asked the court to either reverse—finding an abuse of discretion—or to remand with instructions that the judge conduct a more specific factual balancing and, if necessary, tailor redactions. Braithwaite and Hoff stressed that the statutory confidentiality framework and existing precedent counsel caution: even if some oversight is warranted, the proper remedy may be for the legislature to change the law rather than a court-ordered public release in this case.

The record before the justices includes a detailed OCA report that summarizes facts and recommends systemic reforms but, counsel said, withheld intimate details. Counsel also noted practical questions raised at argument: whether redaction of audio or transcript could feasibly protect residual privacy interests and how the abuse-of-discretion standard should be applied on appeal.

The court heard extensive questioning from the justices about which legal standard applies to an interested nonparty (the media here), whether precedent such as the Commonwealth cases cited by counsel controls, and whether remand to the trial judge to reweigh the identified factors would be appropriate. No decision was announced at argument.

If the court orders disclosure, counsel and the justices discussed logistical constraints, including whether partial redaction or controlled, prepublication review could address privacy concerns; appellees questioned whether such remedies would be effective or impose impossible burdens on parties. The justices also explored whether the OCA’s public report and the fact of national publicity factor into the balancing test applied under the impoundment rules.

The case is listed on the court docket as SJC-13601, Department of Children and Families v. Mother et al.; the justices took argument but did not issue a ruling at the hearing recorded in the transcript.