Angelique Lockett and Lanetra Lockett v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana, Inc., and Cathy McGee
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 582
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In January 2010, 17‑year‑old Angelique Lockett used an adult friend’s state ID and Medicaid card, and with Cathy McGee posing as her mother, sought services at Planned Parenthood and obtained an abortion without Angelique’s actual mother (LaNetra) being notified or consenting.
- Angelique forged the friend’s name on consent documents and never revealed her true age or identity to Planned Parenthood staff.
- The Locketts sued Planned Parenthood and McGee (Angelique later an adult), alleging statutory violations of Indiana Code chapter 16‑34‑2 (parental‑consent and informed‑consent abortion statutes) and common‑law claims (negligence, battery, emotional distress).
- Planned Parenthood moved for summary judgment, asserting (a) the abortion statutes do not create a private civil cause of action, (b) Health Care Consent Act (HCCA) immunity for reliance on a person believed in good faith to be authorized to consent, and (c) equitable estoppel based on Angelique’s fraud.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Planned Parenthood; this appeal affirms in part and reverses/remands only as to dismissal of claims against McGee because she may not have been served.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana Code ch. 16‑34‑2 confers a private civil cause of action | Locketts: the statute protects specific individuals (parents/minors) and supports a private enforcement remedy | Planned Parenthood: the statute is a criminal regulatory scheme with explicit criminal penalties and no civil remedy; no legislative intent to create a private right | Court: No private cause of action; statute protects the general public and provides a comprehensive criminal enforcement mechanism |
| Whether LaNetra (mother) can pursue common‑law negligence or negligence‑per‑se based on failure to obtain parental consent | Locketts: parental constitutional interests and §16‑34‑2‑4 support common‑law duty and negligence‑per‑se | Planned Parenthood: no common‑law duty owed to parent; §16‑34‑2‑4 is intended to protect the minor (not the parent) | Court: No duty owed to parent; parent not in class statute protects; dismiss negligence and negligence‑per‑se claims by LaNetra |
| Whether Planned Parenthood is civilly liable to Angelique despite her minority because consent was invalid | Angelique: she lacked capacity; consent was invalid so civil claims (battery, negligence) lie | Planned Parenthood: HCCA §16‑36‑1‑10 immunizes providers who rely in good faith on consent from an individual believed to be authorized | Court: HCCA immunity applies; Planned Parenthood entitled to summary judgment because it reasonably relied on patient’s apparent adult identity |
| Whether Angelique can pursue claims despite her own fraud | Angelique: seeks recovery despite her misrepresentations | Planned Parenthood: Angelique is equitably estopped because she intentionally deceived provider to induce reliance | Court: Equitable estoppel bars Angelique’s claims—her fraudulent conduct induced reliance and prejudice to Planned Parenthood |
| Whether dismissal as to Cathy McGee was proper | Locketts: McGee never appeared and may not have been served; cannot be dismissed without service/default | Planned Parenthood: judgment for defendants entered below | Court: Trial court’s wholesale dismissal was premature as service on McGee is unclear; remand for further proceedings as to McGee |
Key Cases Cited
- Asklar v. Gilb, 9 N.E.3d 165 (Ind. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Keaton & Keaton v. Keaton, 842 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. 2006) (affirmance of summary judgment on alternative legal theories)
- LTV Steel Co. v. Griffin, 730 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. 2000) (statutes protecting the public with comprehensive enforcement mechanisms generally do not create private causes of action)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental liberty interest in raising children)
- H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981) (competing interests in minors’ abortion decisions)
- Planned Parenthood of Cent. Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976) (minors possess constitutional rights; parental interests are not necessarily controlling)
- Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979) (rationale for parental‑involvement statutes centers on minor’s best interests)
- Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) (parental involvement rules justified by child’s best interest)
- Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (elements of negligence and duty as a legal question)
- Young v. Williamson, 497 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (definition and proof of bad faith)
- WellPoint, Inc. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 29 N.E.3d 716 (Ind. 2015) (bad faith requires lack of honesty or intent to deceive)
- In re Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1991) (recognizing HCCA immunity for reliance on good‑faith consent)