I believe that the actual court filings remain in the public record and that certain reports, medical records, evaluations and the like (essentially the kids' personal information) have been ordered sealed.
My personal reading (and I invite any attorneys to correct me if I am wrong) is that attorneys at times make use of the public records process to release a variety of things--whether or not they are actually pertinent or admissible in court. I first saw it in the Rifqa Bary custody case (Florida courts). The self-appointed attorney for Rifqa (the first attorney appointed for her parents revealed that John Stemberger just showed up on the day of the first court hearing claiming to be Rifqa's attorney--questionable since there is no way he could have seen her at that time in order to get her assent), put together a long and rambling screed supposedly linking the family's mosque to known terrorists, and further suggesting that mosque officials were telliing Rifqa's parents to "deal with her" or they would. On the face this was all unsubstantiated gobbledy-gook and no judge would have allowed its inclusion in proceedings. However, attaching it to a motion made it a part of the public record, fueling flames being ardently fanned by a large collection of wackos online and elsewhere.
I saw it in use again, although slightly differently, during the Trayvon Martin trial. Through the discovery process the Zimmerman team was able to claim a right to a number of wholly irrelevant items (such as Trayvon's school records) that probably could never be entered in court as evidence of anything pertinent. But, it did make them public records and put them out on the internet (aided at times by internal leaks prior to discovery) where they were helpful in smearing the victim and polluting the jury pool.
In this case there does appear to be some attempted use of public opinion, and certain attachments to filings seem to be more for the purpose of inflaming the cheerleaders than any evidentiary value. One example is an affidavit in which Mom relates her objections to a "parenting time assessor" in something of a rant that would get immediately shut down in court. Interestingly, the actual report of the assessor is not attached to any filings and therefore unavailable to the public (appropriately I would hold). Following a March allegation of "abuse" (refuted by the parenting supervisor who was present), we have the inclusion of an ER report (essentially recording that child presents with Mom saying that child was injured by Father, x-rays negative for fracture, no evidence of bruising, child reports pain and limited range of motion. Conclusion: internal contusion from non-accidental injury. Report made to CPS), but rather than the investigative report from THIS incident, attached is the investigative report from a closed case five years earlier, in which there was a finding that the father threatened the children. I suspect this was wholly intentional--including the ER report as an attachment, but omitting the related CPS investigation report (which likely reported a strong suspicion that Mom had invented the whole thing) and substituting another unrelated report. The judge ain't gonna buy that. But, the public might.
In any case--much as I like to see the actual documents, it is appropriate that kids NOT have all their personal, medical and psych history made available. I also think that there were some contacts (possibly threats) made to the camp, that certainly would justify some clamping down on records.
