The Illusion of Family Court Transparency: How Family Courts Silence Victims and Shield Abusers

Family courts are public institutions funded by taxpayers, yet they operate behind a wall of secrecy, denying access to victims and the public. These courts claim to serve justice but perpetuate harm by withholding remote access, excluding marginalized groups, and violating the laws that ensure transparency and accessibility. The result? Victims are silenced, abusers are emboldened, and the public is left in the dark.

Family courts willfully ignore their responsibility as public institutions. They are staffed by public officials who handle public cases in a public building funded by taxpayer dollars. Yet, they deny access to the very people they claim to serve. No public hearing can be considered “public” when barriers exclude individuals with disabilities, transportation challenges, or geographic constraints. Partial access is not access. Limiting access to those who can physically attend hearings neglects anyone who cannot overcome these barriers.

San Mateo Superior Court fails to provide remote access, even though the Zoom platform is in use, available, and publicly funded. Despite this, public remote access is denied, dictated by arbitrary decisions rather than legal obligations. Litigants who invoke the ADA or are unable to attend in person for legitimate, uncontrollable reasons often have their requests for remote appearances denied. This fragmented and discriminatory approach to access violates the principles of transparency, inclusivity, and fairness that public institutions legally and morally must uphold.

the Court’s Failure in Transparency, Accessibility and Accountability

To date, every family court abuse victim we’ve spoken to suffers from conditions protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Most of the conditions are not pre-existing conditions—they were inflicted by abuse caused by the opposing party and magnified by litigation abuse and institutional betrayal. Conditions like PTSD, anxiety disorders, depression, and even physical disabilities often develop as a direct result of prolonged exposure to abuse. When victims enter the family court system, they expect justice. Instead, they find a system that retraumatizes them through denial of accommodations, deliberate intimidation, and systemic failures.

Litigation Abuse: Empowering Abusers by Obstructing Transparency in the System

Navigating this inequitable system only deepens victims' suffering. Post-separation abuse—including litigation, financial, emotional, and psychological abuse—thrives because the court system directly equips abusers with the tools to maintain control and intimidation. Instead of intervening, the system reinforces these tactics, leaving victims trapped in a cycle of fear, distress, and complete isolation. Often, the only source of support and accountability indigent litigants have is public oversight. This is not simply judicial error—it is a system that perpetuates and magnifies the harm it claims to prevent.

Breaking the Law: How Courts Ignore Federal Mandates

The law is unambiguous: partial access is a violation. The ADA mandates that courts, as public services, must be “readily accessible and usable” by all—not just a select few. In Tennessee v. Lane, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of individuals with disabilities to have full access to courthouses. Denying remote access excludes those unable to attend physically, violating their rights under federal law. Moreover, requiring the public to request remote access is unreasonable and burdensome, creating additional tasks for court personnel. However, most critically, it has a chilling effect, deterring individuals from exercising their right to access public proceedings and right to privacy.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 further prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs, including family courts. Denying access based on disability, economic limitations, or geographic barriers isn’t just unethical—it’s illegal. The First Amendment guarantees the public’s right to observe court proceedings, ensuring transparency and accountability. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court reinforced that denial of access undermines this right. Similarly, the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause demands equitable treatment under the law—a standard family courts fail to meet. These legal failures are not abstract but systemic, deliberate, and devastating.

Exposing Corruption: The Case for Full Transparency

Why are San Mateo Superior Court and other courts throughout the state denying remote access? The hard truth is that transparency directly threatens the family court system because it would expose its deep-rooted corruption and dismantle its profitable enterprise. If the public could witness the harm inflicted on victims—biased rulings, silenced voices, and retaliation—there would be widespread outrage. Calls for reform would intensify: impeaching biased judges, demanding jury trials, or even dismantling the family court system entirely. Public funding and oversight could transform this broken system. Transparency would expose their misconduct and malpractice, forcing accountability and compelling these courts to uphold their constitutional oath and follow the law—an obligation they evade, keeping their actions obscured to maintain unchecked power and continue profiting at the expense of justice.

The Fight for Accountability Starts Now

San Mateo Superior Court justifies its refusal to provide public remote access to family law proceedings by claiming the cases are sensitive in nature. However, family law matters are of significant public interest. Court documents are public records, and transparency ensures accountability and public trust in the judicial system.

Another rationale presented is the purported need for additional personnel to monitor Zoom sessions and the associated costs. This excuse ignores the platform's built-in features that make virtual courtroom management simple and efficient. Zoom allows hosts to mute all participants and unmute only the parties involved, streamlining proceedings without requiring extra staff. An alternative solution is to live stream the proceedings to platforms like YouTube, providing real-time access to the public while maintaining courtroom order.

The fight for justice in family courts begins by demanding full transparency and equitable access. Remote access platforms like Zoom are not luxuries—they are necessities. Courts must stop hiding behind excuses and meet their legal and ethical obligations to the public.

Call to Action: Join the Fight for Transparency

Public Access Denied to Family Court Hearings

Imagine a system where victims are truly heard, public oversight ensures checks and balances, corruption is exposed, and justice is accessible to everyone. This vision begins with us: breaking the silence, exposing the secrecy, and demanding accountability. Together, we can dismantle the barriers that silence victims and protect abusers.

Stay tuned for our next blog, which will expose how systemic barriers and accessibility failures further victimize those the system claims to protect.

Disclaimer: The content on this blog is for informational and advocacy purposes only. It reflects the opinions and interpretations of the author and is based on publicly available information, personal observations, and independent research. While every effort ensures accuracy, the blog does not provide legal, medical, or professional advice. The views expressed here are not intended to defame or harm any individual, institution, or entity, and all information is shared in the spirit of transparency and public interest. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research.