Could the public inspect adoption records or indexes held by a South Carolina court clerk?

Plain-English summary

A Greenville County clerk's office asked whether adoption records could be made available to the public. The Attorney General read the then-applicable adoption statute to make all papers and records filed with the clerk confidential from filing and sealed after the final decree. It said the confidentiality extended to indexes in the clerk's custody. The opinion also noted that South Carolina's Freedom of Information Act did not make adoption records public.

The statutory passage quoted by the AG allowed public inspection only after a court order based on good cause. The opinion gave no separate exception for an index and did not decide whether any particular applicant could show good cause.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later
AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current
legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy
mentioned here.

Common questions

Could a member of the public inspect an adoption file held by the clerk? A: The AG said the file was confidential under the statute, with inspection dependent on a good-cause court order.

Was the adoption index public even if the underlying papers were sealed? A: No. The opinion expressly included indexes among the confidential information in the clerk's custody.

Did South Carolina's Freedom of Information Act make these records public? A: The AG cited the FOIA provision stating that adoption records were not made public by that act.

Were the records confidential before a final adoption decree? A: Yes. The quoted statute made filed adoption papers and records confidential from the time of filing and required sealing after the final decree.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion was a narrow reading of the then-current adoption confidentiality statute and the FOIA provision addressing adoption records. It applied the statute's plain words to papers, records, and indexes held by a clerk of court.

Citations and references

The opinion quoted §20-7-1780(8) and cited § 30-4-10 (c). The official PDF supplies the full statutory wording quoted in the letter.

Official title

Asking whether adoption records may be available to the public.

Requester

Josephine Flemings, Office of the Clerk, Greenville County

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/november-19-1998/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/98nov19flemings.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHA RL ES M O LONY C O NDON
ATTORN EY GEN E R A L

November 19, 1998

I

Ms. Josephine Flemings
Office of the Clerk of Court, Greenville County
305 E. North St.
Greenville, SC 2960 l
Dear Ms. Flemings:

i

~
I
~

I
l

.

M
fl

~

1

You have asked whether adoption records may be made available to the public. S.C. Code Ann. §20-7-1780(8) (Supp. 1997), which you cite, states that "[a]ll papers and records pertaining to the adoption and filed with the clerk of court are confidential from the time of filing and upon entry of the final adoption decree must be sealed and ... withheld from public inspection.... [absent court order upon a showing of good cause]" See also§ 30-4-10 (c) (adoption records not made public by Freedom of Information Act). Nothing in §20-7-1780 indicates a legislative intent to depart from the literal meaning of the words of this statute. 1 Accordingly, any such information in your custody must be confidential including indexes. This letter is an informal opinion. It has been written by the designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the opinion of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally reviewed by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a form al opinion.

1

The "... primary function in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature." South Carolina Department of Highwys and Public Transportation v. Dickinson, 288 S.C. 134, 341 S.E. 2d 134 ( 1986). "Where the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, there is no room for interpretation and we must apply them according to their literal meaning." Id.

R n 1111, w1 C. D l·.N:-.J IS Bu1.1>1M;

•

Posr 0 1·1·tCE B<>.x 11 ) -l'J

•

Cott Mll tA. S.C. 2'J2 I 1- I5-1')

•

T ELl'l' ll Ol'E :

llOJ- 7.1-1-3970

•

FACSIM 1t .E: XIH -25.1-<>28 .1

Ms. Josephine Flemings
November 19, 1998
Page 2

If you have further questions, please let me know.

YourSA'el)' truly,

~/~

~~mtrll, Jr.
/

I

~

!

JESJr.

Assistant Deputy Attorney General