Relates to the confidentiality and expungement of records in juvenile delinquency cases in the family court

• Democratic29

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jabari Brisport says this is needed

Introduction Records are created the instant a child comes into contact with law enforcement and the juvenile legal system. While records serve an impor- tant and functional role in aiding the court during the pendency of a case, this utility diminishes and is replaced with a prejudicial effect over time. Despite misconceptions that existing state confidentiality and sealing provisions provide adequate protections, young people face continuing stigma and are excluded from housing, educational, employment and other opportunities. See generally, J. Radice, "The Juvenile Record Myth," 106 Geo. L.J. 365 (2018). In New York, juvenile arrest, probation, prosecu- torial, and court records follow youth into adulthood. The collateral consequences of those juvenile records significantly affect young people throughout their lives by impeding their ability to achieve gainful employment, serve in the military, enroll in higher education, obtain occupational licensing, or acquire citizenship. See, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Expunging Juvenile Records: Misconceptions, Collateral Consequences, and Emerging Practices (Dec. 2020); Juvenile Law Center, Failed Policies, Forfeited Futures: Revisiting a Nationwide Scorecard on Juvenile Records (July 2020); M. Sobie, "A Life Sentence for Children: NY's Antiquated Preju- dicial Juvenile Justice Record Provisions," N.Y.L.J. (Dec. 16, 2021). It is well-settled that it would be "antithetical to the purpose of the Family Court Act to maintain records which would not benefit society and would result in bringing unwarranted discrimination to a child's future." Dorothy D. v. New York City Prob. Dep't, 49 N.Y.2d 212, 215 (1980). The New York Court of Appeals clearly recognizes the myriad of negative consequences that encumber youth for whom records are kept. "That the very existence of FAMILY COURT DELINQUENCY records, despite provisions for confidentiality, may constitute a substantial impediment to entry into institutions of higher learning, government or private employment, the armed services, or the professions, cannot be seriously questioned." Id. at 213. The Court has repeatedly expressed that " The overriding intent of the juvenile delinquency article is to empower the Family Court to intervene and positively impact the lives of troubled young people" and "to extinguish the causes of juvenile delinquency through rehabilitation" rather than to punish. Matter of Robert J. 2 N.Y.3d 339, 346 (2004); Matter of Quinton A., 49 N.Y.2d 328, 335 (1980). See also Matter of Emily P., 63 Misc. 3d 755, 833-34 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2019). Notwithstanding the rehabilitative intention of the Family Court Act, the current record-related provisions harm, rather than protect, young people long after the conclusion of their cases. In 2015, the American Bar Association issued the "Model Act Governing the Confidentiality and Expungement of Juvenile Delinquency Records." The "Model Act" calls for comprehensive protection of juvenile records by prioritizing confidentiality and the automatic expungement of all records generated by juvenile system involvement, expanding beyond just court files. Many states follow the Model Act by prioritizing expunge- ment and ensuring confidentiality for all juvenile records. See, e.g., West's Colorado Revised Statutes § 19-1306; Illinois Compiled Statutes § 405/5-915; Ohio Revised Code §§ 2151.355, 2151.356, 2151.358; Revised Code of Washington § 13.50.050; Delaware Code §§ 1014-1018; North Caro- lina General Statutes §§ 7B3200, 3201; Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-921; Arkansas Code §§ 927-309 B 1 A, B 2; West's California Code, Div. 2, C. 2, Art. 22, § 826 A; Connecticut General Statutes §§ 46b133a,46b-146; West's Florida Statutes § 943.0582; Minnesota Statutes § 2608.235 9; Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes § 9123; West's Code of Virginia § 16-1-306. This proposal adopts many of the provisions set forth in the "Model Act" and is consistent w

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.