Issue:

In X's request for an opinion, s/he asked the Commissioner to address the following issue:

Discussion:

Pursuant to section 13.04, X is entitled to gain access to data about him/herself. Pursuant to section 13.02, subdivision 8, and Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, subpart 2, X also is entitled to gain access to data about Y. (Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500, subpart 3, a minor can request that data be withheld from a parent. Here, neither X nor the County suggested that Y has objected to the release of any data.) Generally speaking, private data about Y's other parent are not accessible to X.

Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 13.46, subdivision 2, and generally speaking, most data on individuals collected, maintained, used, or disseminated by the welfare system are private.

In her comments to the Commissioner, Ms. Erickson wrote:

...Rice County received [X's] July 22, 2002 correspondence on July 23. On July 24, 2002, [X] telephoned Rice County Social Services requesting information regarding whether [Y's other parent] had applied for welfare benefits....When [County staff] returned [X's] call she advised [X] that we do not release information relating to applications for services unless the requesting party is the data subject or if there is a signed release in the file from the applicant. In addition, [staff] advised that we couldn't even disclose whether an application has been made unless release of such information has been authorized by the data subject....

On either August 20 or 21, 2002, [X] telephoned Gary Weiers...requesting a written response to [X's] letter of July 22, 2002. Mr. Weiers responded to that request by faxing a response on August 21, 2002 to [X] indicating that the information [X] had requested would not be provided...

Rice County recognizes that pursuant to Minn. Stat. section13.02, Subd. 8, and Minnesota Rules 1205.0500, a parent generally has access to data maintained on his/her child. In this case, however, the data [X] is requesting is for information in an application that is made by someone other than [X] or the child. If the child was making the application, [X] may have a right as a parent to see such an application. That is not the situation in the instant case and accordingly any information or even the existence of an application could not be disclosed.

Ms. Erickson then cited Advisory Opinion 94-055 in which the Commissioner opined that private data about a husband is not accessible to his spouse.

The Commissioner has the following comments. The Legislature, by enacting section 13.02, subdivision 8, made it clear that, in most situations, parents should be able to gain access to data about their minor children. The Department of Administration, in its rules implementing Chapter 13, has given detailed instructions as to how to carry out that legislative policy. (See Minnesota Rules, section 1205.0500.) Neither the statute nor the implementing rules address the issue that Rice County raised in its response to X's opinion request, i.e., what should a government entity do when a parent requests access to data about his/her minor child and release of the data about the minor may inadvertently or directly reveal data about the other parent?

In many situations where government entities maintain data about a minor child, particularly when the parents were never married or currently are divorced, one can argue that release of any data about the child in response to a data request by one of the parents will inadvertently or directly release data about the other parent. This is true especially in the human services arena. For example, in the case of a very young child, contacts with an obligor by a government entity seeking to enforce a child support order on behalf of an obligee will reveal the fact that the obligee has sought assistance in enforcing a child support order. This kind of dissemination is necessary in order for the government entity to carry out its responsibilities relating to a variety of state and federal laws involving parents and their minor children.

However, as stated above, the Legislature has placed great import on the policy that parents are entitled, in most cases, to gain access to data about their children. Therefore, a government entity should not be precluded from providing data to one parent simply because doing so may mean the entity inadvertently or directly releases data about the other parent. To accept the contrary view would, in many instances, effectively and absolutely thwart the legislative policy set forth in section 13.02, subdivision 8.

In the case at hand, the Commissioner does not know if the County maintains data about either Y or Y's other parent. If the County does not maintain data about Y, X should be so informed. However, if the County does maintain data about Y, given the language in 13.02, subdivision 8, the presumption clearly is that X is entitled to gain access to those data. The Commissioner does not agree with the County's position that it cannot release data about Y to X because such a release also may disclose data about Y's other parent. In a situation such as this, it is incumbent on the County to accommodate both the legislative policy giving parents access to data about their children, and the private classification afforded welfare data pursuant to section 13.46. The County best can do so by releasing to X any data it maintains about Y, while, at the same time, limiting the release of data about Y's other parent to only those data which are incidental to the release of data about Y.

Opinion:

Based on the facts and information provided, my opinion on the issue that X raised is as follows:

Signed:

David F. Fisher
Commissioner

Dated: November 12, 2002