cross-examination about his past delinquency adjudica-
tions or criminal convictions.” Davis v. Alaska, supra, 415
U.S. at 321 (Stewart, J., concurring). See also N.J.S.A.
2A:4A-60c(4).
The right of a third party to juvenile court-related
records for cross-examination purposes may extend to the
State. State v. Allen, 70 N.J. 474 (1976). (See also
N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60c(4).)
State in the Interest of D.H., 153 N.J. Super. 490 (App.
Div. 1977). Disclosure of a juvenile’s identity is
permitted in favor of a potential litigant contemplating
civil action against the juvenile or his/her parents for
delinquent acts allegedly committed by the juvenile.
Such disclosure is limited to names and addresses of
juveniles and their parents and does not extend to
disclosure of police reports of the incident. Such
disclosure may be permissible even though the juvenile is
not found delinquent, primarily because civil liability is
premised upon a much less stringent burden of proof
than is an adjudication of delinquency. Moreover, the
right of a “victim” of an act of delinquency to disclosure
under former N.J.S.A. 2A:4-65b (now N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-
60c(1)) extends to the victim’s subrogee. See also
Brookside Apartments Inc. v. C.S., 276 N.J. Super. 501
(App. Div. 1994), in a civil suit against juveniles and
their parents for fire damage, the plaintiffs’ attorneys
committed misconduct in obtaining police reports of
arson investigation in the absence of showing of need and
in the absence of notice to attorneys for the juveniles and
their parents.
- Public Disclosure
N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60f provides:Information as to the identity of a juvenile adjudicated
delinquent, the offense, the adjudication and the
disposition shall be disclosed to the public where the
offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated
delinquent if committed by an adult, would constitute a
crime of the first, second or third degree, or aggravated
assault, destruction or damage to property to an extent of
more than $500.00, unless upon application at the time
of disposition the juvenile demonstrates a substantial
likelihood that specific and extraordinary harm would
result from such disclosure in the specific case. Where the
court finds that disclosure would be harmful to the
juvenile, the reasons therefor shall be stated on the record.
State in the Interest of B.C.L., 82 N.J. 362 (1980).
The Legislature intended public disclosure of
information concerning juvenile offenders pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 2A:4-65c (the former disclosure statute) to be
the rule rather than the exception, and the burden is on
the juvenile to demonstrate that the best interest of the
juvenile and public would not be served by disclosure
before the court may withhold public dissemination.
The Supreme Court ruled that the juvenile must
demonstrate a substantial likelihood of specific harm to
constitute a showing of “good cause” for withholding
disclosure.In State in the Interest of K.B., 304 N.J. Super. 628
(App. Div. 1997), a thirteen year old juvenile
adjudicated delinquent for repeatedly sexually assaulting
his eight year old step-brother moved to modify
dispositional order 40 days later to provide he be
exempted from the disclosure requirements of N.J.S.A.
2A:4A-60. The Appellate Division ruled that the motion
was timely even though not made at the time of
disposition as required by N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60f, because it
was coupled with a good faith application to reopen the
initial dispositional order to obtain other relief.
However, the juvenile did not make the necessary
particularized showing of significant and extraordinary
harm, which must be both sufficiently grave and person-
and situation-particular (i.e., not shared by juvenile
defendants in general), to warrant exemption from
disclosure.In State in the Interest of H.N., 267 N.J. Super. 596
(App. Div. 1993), an order enjoining the news media
from publishing the name, address and other identifying
information about a 16 year old juvenile charged with
scalding her infant nephew to death while bathing him,
was reversed on appeal as overbroad to the extent that it
prohibited the media from publishing information
which had been lawfully obtained from sources other
than those protected from disclosure by N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-
60.- Press Attendance at Juvenile Hearings (N.J.S.A.
2A:4A-60i)
In State in the Interest of Presha, 291 N.J. Super. 454
(Ch. Div. 1995), newspapers sought to permit public
attendance during all court proceedings in a juvenile
delinquency matter involving the brutal armed attack
and robbery of two senior citizens in their home by a
juvenile and an adult. The Family Part ruled that
N.J.S.A. 2A:4A-60i creates a presumption of public
access upon application, which is defeated only by the
juvenile establishing by a greater weight of the evidence
that public attendance would pose a substantial