GOP U.S. Senate candidate Sean Parnell seeks to have child custody case sealed

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Sean Parnell testified Tuesday that sealing the docket in his ongoing child custody case, closing the custody trial to the public and imposing a gag order on the parties involved is necessary to protect his three children.

“It is for my children, and it’s to protect my children from things they should never be exposed to,” Parnell said. “I signed up to run for office. My kids did not.”

But on cross-examination, Parnell admitted that in October 2019 he 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 build followers for his budding political career.

On Tuesday, the attorney representing Parnell’s estranged wife, Laurie Snell, accused him of trying to have it both ways, asking if he filed a motion to seal the record then.

“No, but no one was attacking my family at that time either,” Parnell answered.

The testimony came Tuesday during a hearing before Senior Common Pleas Judge James Arner, who is presiding over the custody case in Butler County. He said he would take the matter under advisement.

Parnell last month filed a motion seeking to seal the record and close proceedings to the public following media reports that addressed Protection from Abuse filings by Parnell and Snell in 2017 and 2018.

Arner scheduled the hearing to allow both sides to present evidence on whether the children have been adversely affected — or could be in the future — from the disclosure of information about the custody case by the parties or someone acting on their behalf.

In his motion, Parnell acknowledged that Snell did not speak to the media, but her attorney, Jennifer Gilliland Vanasdale, did.

“(Parnell) is extremely concerned about (Snell’s) counsel speaking directly to the media about the parties’ children and custody proceedings, especially as she went so far as to provide the press with the date of the parties’ upcoming custody trial,” Parnell’s motion said. “(Parnell’s) goal has been to shield the children from the details of the parties’ legal disputes.”

Parnell said that allowing information about the custody matter into the public eye could negatively impact their children.

In a response, Snell objected to closing the proceedings or sealing the court record.

On Tuesday, she testified that she believed the only information that ought to be off limits is their children’s medical records, mental health records and any related psychological reports.

“I think everything should be open,” Snell said.

“So you are OK with curious individuals, some of whom are on this Zoom conference, examining the custody docket regarding the personal information about your children?” asked Kristen Eberle, who represents Parnell.

“I’m OK with people reviewing court documents,” Snell answered. “All I care about is protecting my children.”

She told Arner that she objected to any additional restrictions being placed on the trial or court record.

When Eberle pushed Snell, asking if she thought their children’s schedule and activities ought to be made available, Snell answered: “It is public because Mr. Parnell publishes it on his social media almost constantly.

“That has been my concern for three years,” she continued. “I don’t like seeing my children on social media, especially when (Parnell) has over 120,000 followers who mainly aren’t family and friends.”

Just this past weekend, Parnell said he posted to Facebook a picture of him with his two sons.

“It’s important. Our children are a pillar of our life. It’s very important to us to protect our children’s images if we are going to be in public life,” he said. “It’s important for parents to portray and show a loving family, otherwise the media will portray something that’s not accurate.”

“You want to control what is done?” Vanasdale asked.

“I think both of us shouldn’t talk about private custody matters going forward,” Parnell responded. “I don’t want either of us talking.”

Regarding the media reports about the couple’s PFA history last month, Snell told Arner that she did not speak to reporters and instead passed messages from them on to her attorney.

In a statement to the media, Vanasdale said that her client’s “main focus has always been the best interests of her three children” and that the custody case was scheduled for trial on Nov. 1.

Parnell objected to Vanasdale sharing the date for the trial.

“I’m concerned if the trial is open to the media, things that children shouldn’t typically be exposed to … the kids will see those things they shouldn’t have to see,” he said. “I don’t want my kids to be exposed to Laurie and I saying unflattering things about one another.”

Vanasdale countered that the custody case docket remains open to the public, and that the trial date is listed there.

She asked Parnell repeatedly if he provided documents to the media regarding one PFA that was expunged and another he’d attempted to take out against Snell. He said he did not. Instead, Parnell said he gave information to his campaign.

“Yes, I gave documents to my campaign, but I did not give any documents to the press or authorize release of any documents to the press,” he said.

On Friday, Trib Total Media filed a motion to intervene in the case to argue against the record being sealed.

In its filings, the Trib argued that there is a common law presumption of openness in the courts that can only be overcome by a finding of good cause.

“Blanket rules closing entire classes of trials to public view must give way to a case-by-case determination,” the motion said, quoting precedent. “The issue in each case must be whether closure serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”

On Tuesday, the Philadelphia Inquirer also filed a petition to intervene.

Arner said he would address the media motions at a later date but allowed the hearing to remain open.