Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CA: Divorce bill would allow judges to redact financial information (Burkle's Law)
AP on Bakersfield Californian ^ | 4/26/06 | Samantha Young - ap

Posted on 04/26/2006 7:27:45 PM PDT by NormsRevenge

An Assembly committee voted Wednesday to allow judges to edit personal and financial information out of divorce records if a spouse requests the information be kept private.

The Appropriations Committee endorsed a bill that supporters framed as critical to privacy and identity theft prevention, but opponents warned would lock the public out of court proceedings.

A 12-3 vote sent the measure to the full Assembly.

"In every case, whether you are rich or poor, everything down to the balance in your checking account is available to the public," said Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City, the bill's author. "I just don't see any reason for that."

Women's organizations, judicial groups and First Amendment advocates lined up in the committee room to urge lawmakers to reject the bill over public access and equality issues.

Tracy Kenny, legislative advocate of the Judicial Council of California, said the courts will look like they have something to hide if judges make divorce records secret and then rule on the case.

"While we recognize information in the file is of course sensitive and private to many people, we also recognize that if it appears the court is making decisions in secret that may enhance existing perceptions out in the public that there is some kind of unfairness going on in these cases," Kenny said.

The Legislature in 2004 approved a broader bill that gave judges the authority to seal entire divorce records.

The California Newspapers Publishers Association, the Los Angeles Times and the Associated Press challenged the law, and a state appeals court struck it down. Critics said it was designed to help billionaire Ron Burkle, a major campaign contributor who was in the midst of divorce proceedings.

The revised bill would permit a judge to edit out Social Security numbers, home addresses, banking information, annual salaries, income and net worth.

"Actual listing of financial information of individuals gives no benefit to the public other than maybe the newspapers' ability to sell papers based upon salacious details of someone's financial privacy," Murray said.

Besides Murray, no one spoke in favor of the bill, but the Family Law Group within the State Bar and the California Alliance for Families and Children are listed as supporters.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: bill; burkle; california; divorce; financial; information; judges; redact; ronburkle; sb1015

1 posted on 04/26/2006 7:27:48 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I don't see any public need to know here.

Heck, I don't think property tax and personnel property tax information should be available to the public online.
2 posted on 04/26/2006 7:34:16 PM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
In Virginia you can have personal information put into a sealed file in divorce cases -- and by law you must put Social Security numbers and financial account numbers into a sealed file. Dunno why anybody would object.
3 posted on 04/26/2006 7:39:59 PM PDT by CobaltBlue (Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Where's the ACLU? I thought they were all for the right to privacy.


4 posted on 04/26/2006 7:50:48 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

The ACLU is otherwise occupied. Their top priority is dishing everything Republican. The fact that men do not like looking after their wives and children once they have found greener pastures is just not important to them. If they had vision, they would understand that it is one of the most important decisions made by the courts, it can prevent all sorts of social disorders if handled in the proper perspective, and women can be free to raise the next generation without the deprivation and scars on the children involved that usually result from a divorce.
This of course, does not apply to the very few women who are at fault in a marriage.


5 posted on 04/26/2006 8:16:22 PM PDT by truthpls
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Burkle buys his own secrecy law. How sweet.

So much for government and the courts being accountable to the people.


6 posted on 04/26/2006 9:48:14 PM PDT by calcowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Thirty one years ago, with time to kill before we were married in the CA court system, the soon to be Mrs and I sat in on a divorce proceeding then taking place within one of the "public" courts.

Despite the obvious hatred of both the attorneys and the agreived parties in the case, we both always wondered whether there just might have been some reconciliation in their mutual hatred of us - that just might have transcended their hatred of one another - that we should dare violate the sanctity of their separation.

7 posted on 04/26/2006 9:48:47 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

This is redundant. As the law stands now, one can get around having financial data put in the divorce file. It means your lawyer has to be a little smarter and do a little extra work but that's all.

And once the case is finished, even if there is financial data in the court's file, there's a little box to check on one of the forms that tells the court to seal the financial stuff.

So I wonder what this proposed law is really all about?


8 posted on 04/26/2006 10:21:13 PM PDT by Auntie Mame ("If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." --Grandma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthpls
This of course, does not apply to the very few women who are at fault in a marriage.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

9 posted on 04/27/2006 7:02:41 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson