Remove Divorce Records From Google.
Pay Only After Removal.

Removing the source pages and the Google results is the part we act on.

Largely, yes. What people find is the copy Google shows, and that is what we address: a docket page on a site like Trellis or UniCourt, or a people-search profile. When that page is redacted or removed, the Google result goes with it. Separately, Google will remove results that expose specific personal information, such as a home address or financial account number. Where a court has sealed the file, clearing the leftover results becomes more straightforward.

Yes, in some states a court can seal all or part of a divorce file, for example specific items such as financial disclosures, account numbers or a custody evaluation. A family law attorney in the state where the divorce was filed can tell you what is available. Either way, we focus on the third-party sites and Google, and if you obtain an order, we use it.

Yes, and this is often the most reliable part of the process. Many people-search sites run opt-out processes, and docket sites such as Trellis and UniCourt accept redaction requests. We file the request with each site surfacing your record and track it through to confirmation. These removals can succeed whether or not the underlying court file is sealed.

There are two layers. First the source: a redaction or opt-out request to each site publishing the record and, where your attorney obtains one, a court order sealing the file. Second, Google itself: a personal information removal request where the page exposes an address, phone number or account number, and an outdated content request once a source page has been removed or changed. This service handles all of it for you.

Divorce records surface on two distinct kinds of sites, and each takes a different removal approach. The first is consumer people-search platforms like Spokeo, BeenVerified, and Whitepages, which bundle the record with your home address, phone number, and relatives. The second is legal-docket aggregators like Justia, CourtListener, UniCourt, Trellis, and DocketBird, which scrape court dockets directly and often rank highly for your name because their pages are heavily optimized for search. Each site is independent and responds to a different request, so we map the full footprint at intake and address every source, not just the first one you found.

Google keeps its own copy of a page until it recrawls it, so a listing can keep appearing in results, sometimes with the old snippet, after the site itself has taken the page down. Removing the source is only half the job. We pair every source removal with a Google Remove Outdated Content request for the exact URL, so the stale result and its snippet clear from search. Without that second step, people can keep finding a page that no longer exists.

It depends on the type of request. People-search opt-outs and docket-site redactions run on each site's own schedule, and Google reviews removal requests case by case. We give you a realistic expectation for each item in the consultation and keep you updated at every stage.

Pricing depends on how many sites are involved, whether sealing is being pursued, and the complexity of the case. What is consistent: Reputation Resolutions charges nothing upfront. Our fee is collected only after removal or de-indexing is confirmed for the items we take on. Schedule a free, confidential consultation and we will give you a clear, case-specific assessment at no charge and no obligation.

This is common, and it is not the end of the road. Even when a court does not seal the file, we can usually get the copies on docket and people-search sites redacted or removed, and ask Google to remove results that expose specific personal information. Suppression is also available as separate work, scoped in writing.

They can. Tools including ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, and Gemini draw on publicly available pages, including aggregator pages and indexed court dockets, when answering questions about people by name. When those sources are removed and drop out of Google, AI tools that rely on web search are much less likely to retrieve them.

Often, on the third-party sites. A child's name, school or custody details on a docket site is a strong, specific reason for redaction, and UniCourt lists a record that concerns and harms a minor as a factor in its policy. Redacting that part of the court file is a motion through an attorney, and many states have rules protecting minors' information in filings. We handle the websites and Google, and we use any order the court gives you.

No. Each aggregator, people-search site, and search engine operates independently and requires its own removal or opt-out request. Sealing the court file does not automatically pull down the copies already republished across the web. We map the full footprint at intake and address every site surfacing your record, rather than clearing one while leaving the others live.

Yes. Discretion is central to how we work. These are personal matters, and we treat them that way. Your consultation is confidential, client identities are kept private, and requests are made in your name only to the sites and search engines involved. We never publish or reference client details.

The clearest grounds are a court order sealing the file, a page that exposes specific personal information such as a home address or financial account number, a record that identifies and harms a child, a people-search profile you can opt out of, and a listing that is outdated or wrong. We evaluate your specific situation against these grounds and tell you which apply before you commit to anything.