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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT