Tenn. judge grants access to Russian adoption case

A Tennessee judge earlier this week granted a media coalition’s request to unseal court documents and proceedings in a case that prompted heightened scrutiny of international adoptions.

Torry Hansen failed to convince the court that a lawsuit seeking child support from her on behalf of the 9-year-old boy she adopted but then abruptly returned to his native Russia should be shielded entirely from public view. Some records related to the child’s adoption history will remain sealed to protect his privacy, however.

In April 2010, Hansen, then of Shelbyville, Tenn., garnered media attention worldwide after she put the then-7-year-old adopted son Justin alone on a plane back to Moscow with a note describing him as troubled.

The World Association for Children and Parents brought the child support claim against Hansen and her mother Nancy Hansen, a co-adoptive parent. The boy is also a plaintiff in the suit.

In an attempt “to shield themselves from the public scrutiny that their own actions have caused,” the pair unsuccessfully argued that the cause of action is a juvenile court case subject to confidentiality requirements under Tennessee law that would allow blanket closure and sealing orders, said Robb S. Harvey, a Nashville media attorney who represented the coalition. The group includes The (Nashville) Tennessean, Shelbyville Times-Gazette, Tennessee Press Association, Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, Inc., Middle Tennessee Professional Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, the Associated Press, WSMV-TV Channel Four and WKRN-TV Channel Two.

Even if this cause of action were deemed a juvenile court case — an issue the court did not specifically address during its hearing Monday — such excessive secrecy nonetheless contravenes the presumption of openness in court proceedings and documents filed therein imposed by the U.S. and Tennessee constitutions, as well as common law, or case law developed by courts over long periods of time, according to the memorandum of law in support of the coalition’s motion to intervene in the case.

To overcome this presumption, parties attempting to block public access must articulate and prove specific facts “that would establish that an overriding interest provides the most compelling of reasons to justify closure,” the memo stated. If the judge decides that restrictions to public access are appropriate, he or she must articulate specific, on-the-record facts and findings demonstrating why closure is essential to preserve this interest and that no alternative to closure will adequately protect that interest.

In cases involving access to proceedings in juvenile court in Tennessee, the judge must make written findings of “particularized prejudice” to the juvenile that outweighs the public’s right to attend the proceeding — a showing the Hansens could not make, the memo argues.

“The juvenile lives in Russia, thousands of miles away from these proceedings, and is one of the petitioners who are, of course, opposing the [Hansens’] motion,” it states. “Those facts alone diminish any potential prejudice based on the supposed right to confidentiality being asserted.”

Although the court denied the motion to close the courtroom, it did take note of a Tennessee law governing juvenile court records that allows the documents and files to be shielded from public view.

Such a confidentiality right, however, does not entitle a party to a blanket order sealing all records filed in connection with the case; nor does it apply to protect adults involved in the matter because the privacy of the child is the interest served by the statute, the court ruled.

Thus, while adoption records regarding the child’s family history, for example, may properly be sealed, those relating to the terms of the contract between the adoption agency and the Hansens may not, it added. The judge directed the attorneys to decide which documents related to the adoption and juvenile court proceedings should remain sealed under that standard. He said he will then review each one individually to assess the appropriateness of the sealing before publicly releasing the others.