ILNews

COA balances free speech vs. minor's privacy rights

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was faced with competing constitutional rights today: a mother’s right to free political speech versus her daughter’s right to privacy as to whether her father allegedly sexually abused her.

The court addressed this issue in Paternity of K.D.; T.N. v. B.D., No. 49A02-0907-JV-693, in which mother T.N. had spoken to an Indianapolis newspaper about her daughter’s alleged sexual abuse by the daughter’s father, B.D. The mother believed daughter K.D. had been abused by her father and was angry when the courts kept returning K.D. to his custody after the claims hadn’t been substantiated.

The articles ran a photo of the mother and named the judges, father’s attorney, and referred to K.D by a pseudonym that is very similar to her given name. The articles never mentioned how the abuse allegation wasn’t substantiated or that the CHINS case was dismissed because it was based on that allegation.

B.D. filed two petitions for rule to show cause and the juvenile court prohibited the parties from talking to the media or others about the case. The juvenile court found speaking with the media wasn’t in K.D’s best interest and the statements could result in permanent damage to the daughter.

The Court of Appeals agreed with T.N. that the order violates her right to free political speech under the First Amendment. The order constitutes an invalid prior restraint because it’s overbroad, wrote Judge Edward Najam. The appellate court balanced T.N.’s right to challenge the judiciary in the media against the privacy rights held by K.D. and father. K.D. has a privacy interest in not having the allegations of sexual abuse publicized, but there was no evidence presented that K.D. suffered or would suffer if her mother continued talking to the media.

“Freedom of speech is a fundamental right. And the right to challenge the government, inherent in freedom of speech, is at the foundation of our Constitution,” wrote Judge Najam. “Thus, we decline to say that Mother’s right to freedom of speech must yield absolutely to all facets of what the juvenile court broadly described as ‘a confidential matter.’”

The appellate court also found that B.D.’s privacy rights don’t outweigh T.N.’s right to free speech. B.D. is with recourse in the event of false accusations through a defamation action.

Examining whether the proceedings in K.D.’s case were confidential under Indiana Code sections 31-39-1-1 and -2, the judges found a literal reading of these statutes would prohibit the release only of documentation or “records” of the juvenile court but would not affect a party’s discussion of those records.

“However, such a construction would emasculate the rule by allowing a litigant to read the records or documents in whole to someone unaffiliated with the litigation. That absurd possibility cannot be the intent of our legislature,” wrote Judge Najam.

The order correctly prohibits T.N. from discussing with anyone the contents of the records listed in Section 31-39-1-1, but the order isn’t narrowly tailored. The order is overbroad to the extent that it includes mother’s independently obtained knowledge of incidents or facts that underlie the court proceedings, so it’s an invalid prior restraint on her free speech rights.

The Court of Appeals ordered the juvenile court to enter a new order that prohibits T.N. from disclosing to the media or anyone information that she learned exclusively through the juvenile proceedings and to prohibit her from using K.D’s name or similar pseudonym.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT