Sealing Paternity Records in Indiana

If you have questions about sealing paternity records in Indiana, call my office at 317-771-8535 for a free consultation.  I provide services in Indianapolis and Central Indiana.

Sealing Paternity Records in Indiana

Introduction

Sealing paternity records is a legal process that requires the person requesting the case to be sealed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the need for secrecy outweighs the public policy of open records. The Indiana Code (I.C.) 5-14-3-5.5(d) outlines specific criteria that must be met in order for a court to grant such a request. This process ensures that the public interest is protected while also addressing the need for confidentiality in certain situations.

Requirements for Sealing Records

In order to seal paternity records, the following five key elements must be demonstrated:

1. Public Interest:

Sealing the records is in the public interest. This means that keeping the records confidential serves a greater good for society. For example, sealing records might protect the privacy of individuals involved, particularly minors, or safeguard sensitive information.

Reference: Indiana Code § 5-14-3-5.5(d)(1)

2. Danger to Public Interest:

Disseminating the information in the records will create a serious and imminent danger to the public interest. This could include risks such as identity theft, harassment, or other forms of harm that could result from the public availability of the information.

Reference: Indiana Code § 5-14-3-5.5(d)(2)

3. Least Restrictive Method:

Any prejudicial effect created by disseminating the information cannot be avoided by any reasonable method other than sealing the records, making secrecy the least restrictive option. This ensures that sealing is only used when absolutely necessary and no other less restrictive means are available.

Reference: Indiana Code § 5-14-3-5.5(d)(3)

4. Effectiveness:

There is a substantial probability that sealing the records will be effective in protecting the public interest against the perceived danger. This criterion ensures that sealing will achieve the intended protection and is not merely a precautionary measure.

Reference: Indiana Code § 5-14-3-5.5(d)(4)

5. Duration:

It is reasonably necessary for the records to remain sealed for a specific period of time. This means that the sealing is not indefinite and will be reevaluated when the need for secrecy no longer exists.

Reference: Indiana Code § 5-14-3-5.5(d)(5)

Temporary Nature of Sealing

The sealing of records is not permanent. The records become unsealed at the earliest possible time when secrecy is no longer needed. This ensures that the public’s right to access information is restored once the necessity for confidentiality has passed.

Reference: Indiana Code § 5-14-3-5.5(e)

Non-Party Requests for Sealing Records

A non-party can file a request to seal records citing Administrative Rule 9 (AR-9). The court may deny the request on its face without a hearing. The request must be verified, and the actual parties have 20 days to respond. If the court sets a hearing, AR-9(H)(2) requires the court to post advance public notice of the hearing. The non-party must provide clear and convincing evidence of the following four elements:

1. Public Interest:

Prohibiting access will substantially serve the public interest. This means that the non-party must demonstrate that sealing the records serves a greater good for society.

Reference: Administrative Rule 9(H)(4)(a)

2. Risk of Harm:

Accessing or disseminating the information in the court records will create a significant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other individuals, or the general public. This could include risks such as identity theft, harassment, or other forms of harm.

Reference: Administrative Rule 9(H)(4)(b)

3. Prejudicial Effect:

If the court does not prohibit public access, there will be an unavoidable substantial prejudicial effect on ongoing proceedings. This ensures that the integrity of ongoing legal processes is protected.

Reference: Administrative Rule 9(H)(4)(c)

4. Exclusion:

The information should have been excluded from public access under AR-9(G). This criterion ensures that the information in question falls within the categories that warrant exclusion from public access.

Reference: Administrative Rule 9(H)(4)(d)

Least Restrictive Method

Similar to the initial sealing request, this remedy is also not permanent. The order will be written to be the least restrictive as possible, ensuring that the public’s right to access information is restored once the necessity for confidentiality has passed.

Reference: Administrative Rule 9(H)(6)

Extraordinary Circumstances

Both methods state that “extraordinary circumstances” must exist. Factors such as embarrassment, inconvenience, or regret are unlikely to outweigh the public policy of open records. Courts are careful to balance the need for confidentiality with the public’s right to access information.

Reference: Administrative Rule 9(G)(3)(f)

Relevant Indiana Cases

  • Doe v. Town of Plainfield: This case involved the sealing of records to protect the privacy of individuals involved. The court considered the public interest and potential harm from disseminating the information.
  • State v. Doe: In this case, the court evaluated the necessity of sealing records to prevent significant harm to the requestor and others.
  • In re Paternity of Baby Doe: The court assessed whether sealing paternity records was the least restrictive method to protect the individuals involved while serving the public interest. 

Conclusion

Sealing paternity records in Indiana requires a thorough examination of the need for confidentiality against the public policy of open records. The process involves demonstrating specific criteria and ensuring that the sealing is temporary and the least restrictive method possible. Courts carefully balance the interests of privacy and public access to maintain transparency and protect sensitive information.