Evening star., 1951-05-30

1reply has been delayed, pending
clarification in the Interpretation
of our statute relative to disclosure
of information in our records.
Since the records of our court
are by statute open to inspection
only to the child. his parents or
duly authorized attorney. except
upon order of the United States
District Court, we cannot disclose
| information contained therein
without the specific knowledge
and consent Of the child or his
parents. To permit such disclosure
is not only contrary to our statute
but contradicts our assurance to
the child and his parents that the
juvenile court records are closed
and that information contained
therein is confidential to the court.
GAS for independent investiga-
ton as to identity or possible
whereabouts of relatives of this
boy. we regret that we do not
have the facilities and personnel
to do this"
Had No Record of Any Kind.
Judge Cockrill also did not tell
the New York probation officer
that the court actually had no
record Of any kind on the boy.
Mfr. Van Arkel, in his memo
Irandum to Senator Kefauver and
Chairman Nicely of the Senate
District Committee, said he had
been informed that probation
Officers Welfare Department EN-
Iployes and representatives of pri-
Ivate social agencies rely on the
courts social files. He said the
agencies had told hind, and Com
missioner Donohue had con-
tflrmed, that their inability to
get access to these records "se-
lriously prejudiced them in the
performance of their duties"
The social filesg he said, are
governed by another section of
the law from the one Judge Cock
rill has been quoting in her in
formation ban.
While such records are un-
der the control and supervision
of the court" Mr.. Van Arkel
wrote. there is no similar pro-
Inhibition in that section concern
ing their publication. Indeed,
from this and other sections, the
statute appears clearly to con-
template their use by interested
persons"
Holds Amendment Unneeded.
He said he did not believe an
amendment to the law was neces-
sary. because the social files are
not records of the court. He said
it appears to him there Is nothing
in the present law that would
preclude an agreement between
Judge Cockrill and interested
agencies by which the social files
could be made available, under
/ adequate safeguards" to those
with legitimate interest in see
ing them.
/ Mr.. Van Arkel also took note
of the suggestion" that Judge
Cockrill seeks to have the power
transferred from District Court
to herself to determine whether
records should be made available.
He was referring to the examina-
ton of the official records, which
now require a District Court
order. He said he thought it
would be unwise to transfer this
power to Juvenile Court.
In opposing amendments to the
law to get the files open, Mr.. Van
Arkel argued that it would be
impossible to enumerate, in a
law, all the agencies and the cir
cumstances under which they
could have access to the records.
He also contended that amending
the law would take time.
i Letter to Kefauver.
Since there is a readily avail
able answer in the form of an
understanding between the court
and the interested agencies by
which they will be given access
to necessary materials under safe
guards which will appropriately
protect these records from unau-
thorized persons" he wrote SEN
ator Kefauver. II should strongly
urge that you use your influence
to induce the negotiation of such