Demanding Accountability: Protecting DV Survivors, ADA Litigants, and Public Transparency in Family Courts

Today, a litigant wrote to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and the Domestic Violence Council, emphasizing the importance of protecting the rights of domestic violence survivors, litigants with conditions protected under the ADA, and the public's First Amendment rights. Court watchers play a vital role in ensuring transparency in family court proceedings. Remote public access is not only essential for oversight but also for safeguarding the rights of vulnerable individuals. By sharing this publicly, we are calling on the community to hold our officials accountable for upholding these rights and ensuring our courts operate with integrity and transparency.

Here is the email:

Date: On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 4:12 PM

Subject: URGENT REQUEST FOR ACTION: Transparency Needed in Family Court Proceedings

Dear Board of Supervisors and Members of The DV Council,

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public remote access to hearings via Zoom allowed citizens to participate as Court Watchers. Initially, judges attempted to intimidate these observers by unconstitutionally demanding their names, creating a chilling effect. When this intimidation failed to deter public attendance, the Courts banned remote participation, effectively preventing concerned citizens from observing proceedings.

On November 2, 2022, the Superior Courts issued a joint CEO statement (attached), citing a shortage of court reporters and asserting that increased funding would not attract more individuals to this profession. Despite the California Supreme Court's ruling in Jameson v. Desta, which guarantees indigent litigants in both criminal and civil courts an official record of court proceedings, the Superior Courts are actively obstructing efforts to ensure transparency in Family Law proceedings. The abrupt changes to public observation policies, implemented without notice or justification, appear to be a systemic method to identify and exclude survivors—predominantly women—who seek support from Court Watch programs. These changes, often announced on the morning of proceedings, restrict public observation and infringe upon due process and the right to a fair hearing, thus violating the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and constitutional rights.

The Courts are explicitly denying indigent litigants and domestic violence survivors, who often suffer from PTSD, anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders, their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by refusing requests for accommodations, such as allowing an ADA support person to appear via Zoom. Additionally, the Courts refuse to accommodate any alternative methods of record-making. Observers are barred from attending without prior judicial vetting (which has consistently been denied) unless they appear in person, despite ongoing encouragement for litigants and attorneys to attend remotely. This restriction undermines Court Watch programs, which have proven effective in reducing discrimination in Family Law cases. During the pandemic, remote appearances and public access significantly increased transparency and improved outcomes for women and children.The attached 85-page report (2016-137) from the California State Auditor, titled “Weaknesses in Its Oversight Have Created Opportunities for Judicial Misconduct to Persist,” details how serious judicial misconduct has been overlooked by the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP). As taxpayers, we rely on the CJP for oversight and discipline of judicial misconduct. With their failure, public oversight remains the only recourse.

This change is especially detrimental to domestic violence survivors, who often endured abuse in isolation and now find themselves once again facing secluded proceedings. The unilateral and unconstitutional rule excluding the public from remote observation exposes DV survivors and protective parents to further harm, including legal, financial, and emotional abuse, as well as unjust outcomes such as wrongful judgments, contempt charges, arrest warrants, and loss of custody. It’s important to note that we have been observing hearings remotely across the state and nationwide. Courts that obstruct remote public access often violate state statutes, infringement of constitutional rights, and abuse of discretionary authority. In doing so, they improperly shield themselves behind the doctrine of judicial immunity, which is forfeited when such violations infringe upon constitutional protections. By isolating litigants and depleting their resources and resilience, these courts effectively evade scrutiny, allowing their unlawful actions to remain unchecked and unremedied.Litigants and the public deserve a transparent judiciary and the right to a fair hearing and trial. Denying public access to remote observation is a violation of constitutional rights and an abuse of power. Judicial and institutional abuse will not be tolerated.

We respectfully urge each of you to exercise the authority vested in your positions to advocate for the immediate revision of the court watcher rules implemented by the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, or to escalate this issue to higher authorities as necessary. The public has a fundamental right to observe judicial proceedings, and allowing non-participant court watchers remote access—without arbitrary vetting or prerequisites—is essential for maintaining transparency across all Family Court Departments. These are public hearings, conducted in public buildings by public officials, and funded by public resources. Since the Zoom platform is already in place and supported by taxpayer funds, any assertion that remote access would impose additional financial burdens is unfounded. Local courts throughout the state, across the country, and federal courts readily provide remote public access to hearings, which enhances transparency and fosters public trust in the judiciary. It is imperative that our local courts adhere to the same standards of openness and accountability.

We urge you to take a firm stance and demand that they reopen courtrooms remotely to ensure that litigants, particularly those who are victims of domestic violence and post-separation abuse, have their constitutional rights to due process, fair hearings, and ADA accommodations protected. Public access ensures transparency, accountability, and public confidence, deterring potential biases or improper actions by court officials.

We expect to receive a response to this email by the end of the business day on November 5, 2024, outlining your actions regarding the request for revised court watcher rules. Your prompt attention to this matter is essential for ensuring transparency and upholding the rights of domestic violence survivors. Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.

Sincerely,

Ren DeMello

This email was forwarded to the County programs and services ADA Title II Coordinator, Brae Hunter.

Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 4:22 PM

To: Brae Hunter <bhunter@smcgov.org>

Dear Ms. Hunter,

Please be advised of the email below. We strongly urge you to take immediate and decisive action on this matter. Your prompt attention and intervention are both necessary and expected.

Thank you for addressing this critical issue without delay.

Sincerely,

Renata DeMello

Tuesday, October 22nd, 2024 at 9:09 AM, Ms Hunter replied:

Good morning Ms. DeMello,

The administration of the courts, including case management, staffing, and court procedures, is handled by each court’s internal management under the guidance of State policies.  Accordingly, the County has no authority to take any action in response to this complaint. 

I believe you have connected with the Courts’ ADA Coordinator, but just in case this is the email: ada@sanmateocourt.org

Thank you,

Brae

Tuesday, October 22nd, 2024 at 6:03 PM

Dear Ms. Hunter,

I have read the County of San Mateo ADA Policies and Procedures. I have attached it to this email. Please let me know if you have a different one that I should read. 

Is the San Mateo County Courthouse building owned and maintained by the county?

To my understanding, as the Superior Court operates within a county-owned facility, the county is responsible for ensuring ADA compliance, both in physical accessibility and programmatic access. This responsibility includes accommodations for people with disabilities, such as remote access options, under ADA Title II, which mandates accessibility to government programs, services, and activities.

The court’s ADA coordinator, Daniel Radovich, has not adequately addressed accessibility concerns or requests. I believe he is either not properly trained on the ADA or is being directed to disregard accommodations that do not align with the court’s underlying motives.

I would appreciate clarification on whether the county ADA office, in this case, you, should investigate and ensure compliance with ADA standards, particularly concerning public accommodations within the courthouse. While court procedures may fall under the judiciary, the county remains accountable for maintaining courthouse facilities that meet ADA requirements.

I would appreciate your assistance in resolving this matter with the court’s ADA coordinator and his superiors. If your office is unable to assist, please let me know within the next 24 hours, and I will pursue the appropriate steps through alternative channels.

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Ren DeMello

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney, and this blog is intended solely for educational purposes and to share information. The content provided here should not be taken as legal advice.