[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6394768,"mediaKeyId","2102039-b283969a05b9fc8253915fabf61390ce","parentId",2102039,"title","Senate debate begins on social‑media age limits for minors; sponsors to refine draft","audioSeconds",4472,"startMs",6735000,"endMs",11207000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2102039-b283969a05b9fc8253915fabf61390ce&start=6735&end=11207","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2102039-b283969a05b9fc8253915fabf61390ce/thumbnail_6735000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6394768/Indiana/Senate-debate-begins-on-socialmedia-age-limits-for-minors-sponsors-to-refine-draft","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6394768-ef78e5980b07f83dc205cd4c11f49c45/orig.mp4?Expires=1770582277&Signature=llHgtZJ6lB9nSahYlE0ggbB1mnj9LT-wXitXHusLjM3NjAjRY-~ENbTlqGK4AYyJ0SUsaqyg1UgvU1SdWM8VsTYwoKKw1uNsQGko1GX-OoGSBUr7ZAKVQ5VltAsyYdHx-BbsBWHRqHwUTkt0sIhThfczYQEOIYHX8t-q5nirD7Vvpj9lowSB4hwq7rFrKa1OnGTHAZ7alqRaay98TcaT0jSljd1O3s0ExrevOABSEzFs6j2dL60D9GFfMUkITu4gVL3mU~eYO9~EAJNR0B~3VL9SvblCdJtyKeuBkGHTIXlIVfQjyAyPzqF5tuB5-QtlnTWVCq88erDZj2Z1f2B~jw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Indiana General Assembly","date","2025-01-08T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 11, a proposed restriction on minors’ access to certain social‑media platforms absent verifiable parental consent, drew both support from religious and child‑advocacy groups and opposition from civil‑liberties and technology analysts at the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sponsor overview: The bill’s sponsor told the committee the aim is not to police content but to limit unsupervised social‑media use by under‑16 minors and to provide parents tools to control access. The draft handed out to senators narrows the definition of \"social media operator\" and removes previously proposed private causes of action. The sponsor said the attorney general would have enforcement authority and that the committee intends to add a 30‑day cure period to allow platforms to fix compliance issues before civil penalties are sought.

Supporters’ testimony: Representatives from faith groups and child‑welfare advocates told the committee that rising youth mental‑health problems are correlated with social‑media exposure and urged restrictions. Alexander Mingus of the Indiana Catholic Conference supported the bill as a tool to preserve parental authority and help children grow in a safer environment. Many supporters framed the bill as a parental‑empowerment measure that would encourage parental participation in young people’s online lives.

Opposition and legal concerns: Chris Daley of the ACLU of Indiana said the bill, as drafted, likely infringes minors’ First Amendment rights and that similar statutes in other states have been enjoined in litigation. He cited recent injunctions in Arkansas and Ohio and argued the state risks expensive litigation and a finding that the regulation is an unconstitutional content‑based restriction if the statute prevents minors from accessing constitutionally protected speech. The ACLU recommended alternative measures including parental education, mental‑health investment, and voluntary industry standards rather than a broad statutory restriction.

Practical and technical questions: Senators probed how platforms would verify parents’ identity, how to handle conflicting parental consent where parents share custody, whether algorithms would be used to detect under‑age users, what an \"access\" threshold means (browser viewing vs. account creation), and how to treat VPNs or misrepresented birthdates. The sponsor said the bill focuses on account‑based platform access (user registration) with a parental‑consent verification step using commercially reasonable tools and commercial encryption to protect family data.

Committee status: Chair Brown and the sponsor said work with stakeholders produced a substantially narrowed draft and that committee staff will continue to refine language: adding a cure period for enforcement, clarifying verification methods, and addressing custody/consent conflicts. The committee did not vote and will continue work on the bill before a future vote.

Why it matters: The proposal sits at the intersection of parental rights, youth mental health and free‑speech law. Supporters cite public‑health concerns and parental prerogative; opponents point to constitutional limits and real‑world enforcement challenges. Committee members signaled they will pursue drafting adjustments before further action.

Source excerpts: Sponsor remarks, testimony from the Indiana Catholic Conference, and counsels from the ACLU and other witnesses were recorded on the hearing record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Judiciary Meetings Wednesday, Jan. 8 - Upon Adjournment of Session","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 11, which would restrict social‑media access for minors without verifiable parental consent, drew mixed testimony. Supporters urged restrictions to address youth mental health; civil‑liberties groups warned of constitutional problems and litigation. The committee plans to consider stakeholder amendments before voting.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature IN, Indiana","taxId",77679,"location","Indiana","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6394773,"Committee hears wide support for automatic eviction‑sealing changes; technical issues flagged",2599,6254000,8853000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2102039-b283969a05b9fc8253915fabf61390ce&start=6254&end=8853","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2102039-b283969a05b9fc8253915fabf61390ce/thumbnail_6254000.jpg","/articles/6394773/Indiana/Committee-hears-wide-support-for-automatic-evictionsealing-changes-technical-issues-flagged","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6394773-bc8f14c1154a069e3d8e113950019488/orig.mp4?Expires=1770582277&Signature=AJZiuT~qaJvGAmB1hBf5Byo7fZMkWlVK-~-X7SK0pUSqLO4fV7ie~geAzTtOyTcgPTYx7FIJa17~79dB5pEyahlpxpcAG2tvR-JbVDk-uOxRiUHkoyT7tubPrv7~D6DWvJUFPLxzGGq704eBZiW9Spi86f5pDDRHA6OEr6Uh~SYwh6QGyj0~xueFvg4CGOCjPEct00rWxD6GrZ3C4Jo8-fZuHwt3jHTKL34YKMy2bXw58HZWdticF1F1jAv2qhzm2nT2xE0k9774CYiGmG~h~eNgsBbutE2awzAa6BPl62KKOD3jhZcVokYaxBizYmqd4TDyABF7WRWGM5p6orP42Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 142, a proposal to expand and automate the sealing of qualifying eviction cases, received broad bipartisan and stakeholder support in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Advocates described the bill as a practical tool to reduce long‑term housing instability; title and bar representatives flagged chain‑of‑title concerns that they said would require technical fixes.

What the bill would change: Under current law (HEA 1214, 2022), eviction sealing requires a tenant to file a petition in many circumstances. SB 142 would require courts to issue sealing orders automatically in specified qualifying situations (for example, dismissals, tenant wins, or judgments satisfied) and would expand the time window after which eviction records are sealed — the draft discussed a seven‑year period. Supporters said automatic sealing would prevent erroneous public reporting and ease housing transitions.

Supporters’ testimony: David Pruitt, director of Notre Dame Law School’s eviction clinic, said the proposal would encourage settlements and avoid penalizing tenants who prevailed or paid judgments. Indiana Legal Services reported it had opened clinics and helped more than 1,600 eviction sealing petitions last year; its attorney Jenny Terry urged automatic seals to avoid procedural barriers for low‑income tenants. United Ways, AARP, and Prosperity Indiana also testified, linking evictions to homelessness, child health and long‑term economic harms. Several witnesses offered shorter alternative timelines (the Notre Dame report recommended three years) and urged measures to ensure sealed records are removed from commercial tenant‑screening databases.

Industry and technical concerns: Title industry and probate‑trust bar representatives cautioned that sealing records raises chain‑of‑title and judgment‑lien issues. Elizabeth Berg of the Indiana Land Title Association and the ISBA’s Probate, Trust and Real Property section said unpaid monetary judgments still create liens that can attach to later‑acquired real property; she proposed technical language to ensure a sealed eviction does not inadvertently prevent lenders, title companies or judgment creditors from discovering enforceable debts. Committee members and witnesses discussed whether sealing should extinguish judgment liens (industry said no) or require a separate carve‑out so creditors can pursue collection while public access to records is limited. Senator Brown said staff will work on technical drafting to reconcile sealing with judgment‑lien and title search needs.

Procedure and next steps: Chair Brown said the committee will hold SB 142 for amendment while staff and stakeholders reconcile chain‑of‑title and judgment‑collection mechanics; she signaled a willingness to refine the seven‑year period and ensure courts can automate sealing for qualifying cases without impairing creditors’ statutory remedies. The committee did not take a vote on the bill during the hearing.

Why it matters: Advocates said automatic sealing reduces barriers to housing and employment for people who prevailed in eviction court or satisfied judgments. Industry witnesses urged careful drafting so sealing does not create latent title defects or unexpected liabilities when former tenants later acquire real property.

Source excerpts: Testimony from Notre Dame’s eviction clinic, Indiana Legal Services, United Ways, AARP, Prosperity Indiana, and the Indiana Land Title Association was recorded on the hearing record.","Senate Bill 142 would broaden and automate sealing of qualifying eviction records. Legal aid, law‑school clinics, United Ways, AARP and housing advocates supported the measure; the title and mortgage industry raised technical chain‑of‑title concerns that sponsors said they will address in amendments.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6394777,"Committee hears hours of testimony on parental-rights bill; chair to hold for amendments",5946,327000,6273000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2102039-b283969a05b9fc8253915fabf61390ce&start=327&end=6273","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2102039-b283969a05b9fc8253915fabf61390ce/thumbnail_327000.jpg","/articles/6394777/Indiana/Committee-hears-hours-of-testimony-on-parental-rights-bill-chair-to-hold-for-amendments","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6394777-8edc920ce4fdb773c0211fcea7daf477/orig.mp4?Expires=1770582277&Signature=JTQG8kwx8cB1SjAcPeWOkdTKK~0kWY-rhHhAEJ5Ty5ayh7QSNEzy0In-ofDlN3BnBTXjHF6davEY8EKY6vDz9165~OkLvUGbs2QIi~~8FOOMTZw~G7BjpnkDmoKDKD5fdD90EkJuHYbyoNKlWF2hgW2BhPLyNSQ6RlgxuWSGZx20fET8ScHNir5nS5Vv0zy4FgCrgYeVDlKUOT-1WxiDjJBTIo676UsUDzHGzBzpyCGtgHliBGDt~UzUwD4ED-6pAq4Ihysr1BoujwUAZOGSaagfhNSj9u9ZH14p~NlwINR6Rxw9x2oSxHWkgTbuKwWFJKuYophtx8pp129Wdo4Izw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 143 — a broad parental‑rights measure that would declare parental rights fundamental and create a statutory cause of action against governmental entities — drew extended testimony and robust questioning at the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee received detailed first‑hand accounts from parents who said Department of Child Services (DCS) actions harmed their families, as well as legal analysis and pushback from civil‑liberties advocates.

The bill’s sponsor framed SB 143 as codifying the federal constitutional standard that parents have a fundamental right to the care, custody and control of their children. Supporters argued it would give parents a clearer remedy in state court if a governmental agency, school, or caseworker oversteps without a court finding of abuse or neglect. Opponents and some senators raised concerns about sweeping scope, potential interference with child‑welfare responses, and litigation risk.

Testimony: Multiple witnesses recounted lengthy and painful DCS cases. Miranda and Grant Phillips testified their two children were removed after a medical incident in December 2022; they said the children were separated from the family for months while the parents later learned the youngest child has Ehlers‑Danlos syndrome, a connective‑tissue disorder that can produce bone fragility. They described getting \"18 hours of time with our children a week\" in a supervised setting for months and said their case was dismissed Dec. 7, 2023. Attorney Dawn Marie White, who represents families in abuse/neglect cases, told the committee she litigates monthly to obtain parents’ access to medical records and said denials of access frequently occurred pre‑adjudication, hampering parents’ ability to prepare a defense and obtain appropriate medical care. Jordan Carpenter of the Alliance Defending Freedom, representing out‑of‑state parents, testified in favor of the bill and said the measure was intended to protect parents’ fundamental rights while preserving governmental immunities. Several witnesses, including an attorney who represented the Cox family, said existing remedies are difficult to pursue and argued a statutory cause of action would provide accountability when state processes and caseworkers overreach.

Concerns aired: Senators and other witnesses repeatedly queried the bill’s scope. Committee members asked if the bill would let parents compel access to medical procedures or supplies that state law already prohibits (sponsor testimony clarified the bill excludes affirmative parental rights to procedures that are out‑of‑bounds under existing law). Legal experts warned that the strict‑scrutiny standard the bill applies (requiring a compelling governmental interest and least‑restrictive means to burden parental rights) is a high bar that could generate litigation over ordinary child‑welfare decisions. Multiple senators pressed whether the bill would allow parents to sue individual caseworkers or judges; supporters said language preserves immunities for judicial officers and that claims would ordinarily be against governmental entities. Senator Brown told the committee she planned an amendment adding language to preserve attorney‑client privilege for public defenders and to address other narrow immunity questions.

Committee action: Chair Brown announced SB 143 would be held for amendment and a committee vote next week. Several senators said they want more drafting and clarifications, including refining the definition of \"governmental entity,\" clarifying procedures for access to medical records in expedited hearings, and adding explicit safeguards for law‑enforcement investigations and existing exceptions where courts may restrict parents’ access.

Why it matters: The bill concerns the balance between parental authority and the state’s role protecting child safety through DCS, schools and law enforcement. Supporters say it will give parents an effective statutory remedy; critics say the measure is broad, risks unintended consequences for child welfare practice and invites litigation. Committee members signaled they will work on targeted amendments to the bill before next week’s vote.

Source excerpts: Witness testimony from parents and attorneys, committee Q&A and sponsor comments were recorded across the hearing.","Senate Bill 143, a proposal to codify parental rights and create a private cause of action against governmental entities, drew extensive testimony from parents, attorneys and advocacy groups. The Judiciary Committee held the measure for amendment and plans to vote next week after drafting immunity clarifications for public defenders and others.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6394782,"Senate Judiciary Committee advances annual code publication bill, 9-0",106,226000,332000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2102039-b283969a05b9fc8253915fabf61390ce&start=226&end=332","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2102039-b283969a05b9fc8253915fabf61390ce/thumbnail_226000.jpg","/articles/6394782/Indiana/Senate-Judiciary-Committee-advances-annual-code-publication-bill-9-0","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6394782-57813e3d902456f41265c7a731b820d6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770582277&Signature=EpMfo7IlDMKK1Xo7r6yG4bACRUtY6awB5KjvjlNrg72FnZu~UhbKW~kkLcIWiqiSEPGhguAqjoCbb~PZFrLCuOJXxGaQG91e6F~XPFN2VmJYkK7H0Ware3gpM3n~FW7bkrk9e8L7LUvwcPCQtcpNoMKPWo8Xuvm5qWWJYdyJCls-9onyp78-LgIe1O2oi~a3B0OHKNNEWoiOIFYB5rw6jN3obP8PkN9-L8zSGxOo-b8aoCwKLA0gsnAI-bhQoOcZ~RYBaVYQQ0Kjtu4k8AXgkLifjG4xUIddWYuTtmdyn7vV~ifm-Tpop4TsdZJ3REbtT1i2mg7LXzNsQU1oJzqIvg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 80, the annual code publication and clean-up measure, moved out of the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee on a 9-0 voice vote after a short explanation from sponsor members and no public opposition.

Committee Chair Senator Liz Brown opened the committee’s first hearing by telling members they would take up several bills and asked for civility and three‑minute testimony limits. She then moved to SB 80, described by a sponsor as an \"annual senate code publication bill\" intended to remove obsolete sections and reorganize definitions without substantive policy changes. Senator Aaron Freeman formally moved the bill and Senator Jim Buck seconded. The committee approved the motion; Chair Brown announced the vote as \"9 to 0.\"

Why it matters: SB 80 is the housekeeping vehicle many legislatures use to publish and reorganize statutory language without changing legal substance. Sponsors and the Legislative Services Agency attorney told the committee the measure is designed to update code cross‑references and move outdated text into revised sections so the code remains coherent for lawyers, judges, and the public.

Committee discussion and vote: The bill drew no substantive questions from members. A sponsor noted the bill eliminates old election law definitions from their prior locations and places the definitions in a new section, stressing the change was organizational rather than substantive. After a motion and second, the committee took a roll call; Senators Buck, Freeman, Carrasco, Glick, Cook, Clark, Randolph, Poe and Chair Brown were recorded as voting in favor. The committee recorded the outcome as 9 to 0 and advanced the bill to the next committee stage.

What's next: The bill will continue through the Senate’s committee and floor process. Because the committee’s discussion emphasized the measure is non‑substantive, the primary next steps are technical review and placement on a calendar for further action.

Source excerpts: Committee procedural remarks and the roll call vote were captured on the hearing record.","The Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously moved Senate Bill 80, the routine annual code publication and clean-up measure, after brief explanation and no substantive debate.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate debate begins on social‑media age limits for minors; sponsors to refine draft

Committee hears wide support for automatic eviction‑sealing changes; technical issues flagged

Committee hears hours of testimony on parental-rights bill; chair to hold for amendments

Senate Judiciary Committee advances annual code publication bill, 9-0