Judge denies Parnell motion to seal custody case, but grants protections for children's medical records

The judge presiding over the divorce and child custody case involving Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sean Parnell on Thursday denied a motion by his attorney to seal the entirety of the case and upcoming trial, as well as a motion for a gag order on the parties.

Senior Common Pleas Judge James Arner agreed, however, to protect information relative to the physical and mental health of the couple’s three children.

Neither the parties nor their attorneys are allowed to disclose “any information about the children’s mental and physical health and about treatment that has been or will be provided to them,” the judge wrote.

Arner also said that they may not disclose “any information about evaluations and assessments of the children and the parties themselves which have been made and which will be made in connection with this case.”

Jennifer Gilliland Vanasdale, who represents Parnell’s estranged wife, Laurie Snell, praised the decision.

“Open and transparent court proceedings guarantee that all people are treated fairly by our justice system,” she said in a written statement. “The powerful and influential are not entitled to special treatment, and they should not be permitted to silence others. We are proud of our client for standing up for her Constitutional rights.”

A message left with Parnell’s attorney, Kristen Eberle, was not immediately returned.

Parnell filed a motion last month seeking to seal the record and close the custody trial scheduled for next month in Butler County after media reports addressed Protection from Abuse filings by Parnell and Snell, in 2017 and 2018.

In his motion, Parnell said that his goal was to “shield the children from the details of the parties’ legal disputes.”

Arner had an Oct. 5 hearing on the motion, asking each side to say whether they felt the children had been adversely affected by the disclosure of information in the custody case or might be in future.

Parnell testified that he believed that political opponents or members of the community could improperly use information about the custody case to negatively impact the children.

Snell testified that she was against the motion to seal the record, saying that the only information she felt should be protected related to their medical and mental health records.

“I’m OK with people reviewing court documents,” Snell testified.

She told the court that Parnell posts about their children on social media “almost constantly,” and that he wants information about the children to be seen by the public when it suits him.

In October 2019, during the course of the couple’s custody case, Parnell filed a petition with the court seeking permission to use images of his children on social media to “harness his customer base,” promote his political brand and increase his followers for his budding political career.

When asked by Snell’s attorney if he filed a motion to seal the record then, Parnell responded, “No, but no one was attacking my family at that time either.”

As part of his order, Arner also ordered the parties to redact any information relative to the physical and mental health of the children from either party’s pre-trial statements and then refile the documents in the record.

Arner also denied motions by Trib Total Media and the Philadelphia Inquirer to intervene in the proceeding, noting that neither media outlet is a party in the custody case.