Can Transparency Improve Family and Juvenile Dependency Courts?

At the heart of every family or juvenile dependency case is a simple question: who gets to decide the facts? In Texas, parents have a constitutional right to bypass a judge as the fact‑finder by exercising their right to a jury trial. Yet the vast majority of parents settle their cases outside of court, and in the small percentage that proceed to trial, most parents waive their jury rights. As a result, almost all unresolved cases end up being decided solely by a judge.

Will increased transparency change how judges rule? It’s uncertain. Maybe. Maybe not. We’re about to find out. The National Center for State Courts, which promotes the rule of law and strengthens state court administration, now highlights ways the public can watch family and juvenile dependency proceedings through social media streams.

However, it’s important to remember that judges retain full discretion to close any family or dependency case to the public at any time and for any reason they deem appropriate. And even when a case is open, a judge is expected to maintain judicial independence by hearing only from the litigants and their witnesses — not from court watchers or online observers. If you are a court watcher, pay attention to who the judge actually listens to. In many courtrooms, the dominant voice is often a member of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). These individuals frequently shape the direction of the entire case, while the parents themselves are reduced to spectators. This dynamic undermines the very idea of judicial independence and highlights why many parents argue that jury trial rights are essential in family and juvenile dependency courts. It’s a topic explored more deeply in another blog, but the pattern is clear: when one professional group controls the narrative, parents lose meaningful participation in decisions that shape their children’s lives.