In Re Doe

young lady say will anything acknowledge who to con- then refuses to them. How- approve ever, vince this court to waiver the trial in finding court’s this case parental notification. This determination example serves as an to other trial courts any testimony might sup- undermines who aby conclude minor’s demeanor and port grounds parental by- one of the testimony inconsistent that she is not to be pass.” The trial court based its conclusion believed. totality

“on the of the evidence received

during hearings both of in this case as well applicant”. as the demeanor of the finally The Court reached cor- explained: trial court then case, in rect result its but applicant’s testimony concerning shows that it continues to minimize the for her medical condi- [treatment importance parental involvement in a tion], years which ended some two earli- child’s decision to have an abortion and the er, typifies her conscious or subcon- assessing trial court’s crucial role in a mi- scious modification of the facts credibility. nor’s First, achieve the desired conclusion. in hearing

the earlier there no mention possible and the ill [treatment] it might pregnancy.

effects have on her suspect

It seems to the that an Court

applicant trying would come into court (without prove pa- that an abortion notification)

rental is in her best interest mention such a health concern In re Jane DOE. after she has been told that her first No. 00-0224. testimony good enough. was not Second, applicant in one breath cites Supreme of Texas. purported health concerns associat- ed as a factor she [treatment] June 2000. has considered to show that she is ma- ture and well informed to However, in the

make this decision.

next she same con- breath discounts the by saying plan

sideration she does in points

have children the future. This inconsistency in the applicant’s

thought processes. places She such em-

phasis on that it these health concerns her to conclude that an abortion

causes

is in her best interest while she believes the same health concerns a different

cause her to reach conclusion future.

This is the kind of determination precisely

that trial courts must make these cases credi- case which witness’s

bility requires in issue. The Court findings regarding

trial to make courts cases,15

credibility notification E.g., id. n. the opinion

Justice O’NEILL delivered ENOCH, Court, joined by Justice HANKINSON, BAKER, Justice Justice and Justice GONZALES and Chief II III. Justice PHILLIPS as to Parts denying This from an order appeal for a court order application a minor’s authorizing her to an to consent abortion notifying After parent. without remand Doe, Court, see In re Jane (“Doe 1(1) (Tex.2000) ”), hearing trial court conducted another and prove found that Jane Doe failed to a preponderance of the she is evidence that sufficiently well informed to have an abor- parental tion without notification. The reviewing court of affirmed. appeals After record, we determined that Doe con- clusively statutory require- established the ments and that she entitled to was consent to the procedure notifying par- without a ent. We issued order on March 2000, reversing appeals’ judg- the court of ment, opinions to follow the con- cern a undergo that Doe be able to less risky procedure, option if that abortion was still available to her and that was her following decision. The our is holding presented the evidence Doe conclusively established that she “ma- ture and well informed” to con- sent to an abortion without notifi- § cation. See Tex. Fam.Code 33.003®. highly-charged Abortion is a issue that engenders public often heated debate. and, indeed, expected debate is to be Such in embraced our free and democratic soci- ety. through very type open It of exchange Legislature that our crafted particular statutory enacted the scheme system government before us. Our re- quires judicial independently branch to dispassionately interpret legis- review and in Legislature’s lation accordance with the begin in expressed will as the statute. We Pa- analysis our with an overview of the judicial profound proceed decision with or bypass rental Notification Act’s Legislature it. procedure interpreting pregnancy.2 our role terminate a a for a provide also chose to mechanism Judges Proper A. Role minor, circumstances, to under certain ob- notifying par- tain an without abortion are im- under constraints “[Courts] it system ents. In our government, judicial posed by our dem- function As job policy. to fashion Legislature’s society.... ocratic [T]he function judges, respect policy we defer construing statute is to ascertain the encourage choice our made meaning legislature. words used important parental involvement such go beyond power usurp To is to which defer to Similarly, respect matter. we democracy lodged our its elected policy decision to include Legislature’s legislature.... judge A must reunite procedure in the statute. bypass statute, enlarge nor con- neither to ” Legisla- Our is to determine how the task it. tract process ture work. intended -Felix Frankfurter1 legislature province “It is the Statutory B. The Proof Standard laws; en- make courts to ” creating bypass procedure, them. force no to the Legislature authority delegated Indiana, 26, 80, Barrett v. 229 U.S. 38 upon grounds courts to determine the (1913) 692, 57 1050 S.Ct. L.Ed. Rather, bypass. specif- which a it grant to deciding case we con- squarely In that, if the ically grounds enumerated whether, as question judges, front the of shown, grant pa- to a require the courts apply Parental we should the Notification the rental waiver. Neither did notification Legislature it by Act as the or written Legislature give authority courts to decide our according personal to own beliefs. a to proof the of minor must show level the to reaching grant decision Jane Doe’s prove bypass. to a that she is entitled our put personal we have aside application, Legislature have And the could although job to do viewpoints endeavored our a standard of impose higher chosen to is, judges interpret apply as —that minor to proof, by requiring the such Legislature’s the will as it been ex- statutory by “clear requisites the establish in the statute. pressed “beyond a convincing” proof proof doubt,” In- do so. Unquestionably, passing the Pa reasonable did not stead, in of at the lower Legislature proof Act the it set the level rental Notification stan- rights “preponderance of the evidence” protect by en parents’ tended 33.003(i). § their dard.3 couraging to involve See minors Tex. Fam.Code decisionmaking process. their See Debate of the Bar of the 1. Record of Association Senate, (1947), reprinted 213 Tex.C.S.S.B. 30 on Floor City New of York th (Walter 17, 1999) (statement (March Leg., at 414 F. R.S. Judges, Courts, Politics, Pritchett, eds., Shapiro) Murphy (tapes & C. 2d of available Herman Senator ed.1974). Office). Senate Staff Services author, projections 2. And if the of the bill’s emphasized proof that the 3. The author bill’s prove Shapiro, Senator accu state rate, Florence relatively low: standard the law its intended effect. will have West; a putting judges we Are percent Senator Shapiro reported of Senator 5,523 precarious these determi- situation make preg who terminated their minors you’ve on the nations based research parents; involve nancies in 1997 did not their percent states and is the standard done in other further of she estimated you putting judge in here a makes judicial bypass a are those minors would seek Thus, of preponderance the determination as a result of the under the statute. Act, the evidence.... majority the vast of Parental Notification Shapiro: Lowest level. parent Senator likely will involve minors now importance evidentiary- The ian ad litem advocate for the minor’s 33.003(e). § burden is self-evident. amicus curiae best interests. See id. As any- Legislature provide the Texas Coalition for Parents’ chose not to Rights recognizes: represent any one to other interests. And “Evidentiary standards ex although Family requires proof Code press degree certainty in the out convincing clear and evidence in other come that the factfinder must have. Be matters, Legislature deliberately chose differing interests cause constitutional proof by preponderance of the evidence courts, and societal value come before dif in bypass proceedings. Compare id. fering degrees certainty required.” are 33.003(i) Further, § § if (Citations with id. 161.001. omitted). The Texas Coalition favor, the trial court rules the minor’s urges apply this Court a burden of against there is no but if it rules appeal, similar to proof convincing” the “clear and her, she has access to two levels of appel- Supreme standard the Nebraska § late review. See id. 33.004. Finally, adopted in In re Petition Anonymous bypass statute’s default favor provisions (1997). 251 Neb. 558 N.W.2d If the trial minor. court fails to rule But adopt the Nebraska court was free application on the minor’s and issue writ- heightened proof burden of because findings ten of' fact and conclusions of law legislature Nebraska did not articulate a allowed, within the period the statute proof Legislature standard. Our mandat application granted deems the and the mi- proof ed a standard. For this Court to may nor notify- an abortion without impose a standard different than that our 33.003(h). ing parents. § See id. usurp legisla chose would Likewise, if court appeals does not tive function and amount to activ time, rule within its allotted the statute ism. appeal granted. deems See id. 33.004(b). § Statutory C. Scheme Legislature The easily could have craft- interpret This Court must the stat ed other more stringent for a standards written; ute as it is we are not free to judicial minor bypass, to obtain a constitu- ignore judicial bypass language. the tional concerns aside.4 But as it is writ- statute a minor notifying allows to avoid a ten, the gives statute the minor who de- (1) parent if she can show that: she is judicial cides to a bypass seek a number of sufficiently mature and well informed to instance, advantages. For the minor is make the decision to obtain an abortion only party the bypass to the proceeding. (2) notifying parent; notifying without a § See Tex. Fam.Code 33.003. is entitled interest; She parent would not be in her best (3) to representation by an attorney of her may notifying parent lead to court-appointed sexual, choice or a attorney physical, ad or emotional abuse of the litem, 33.003(i). § and the court appoint guard- must minor. Concerning See id. fact, just Debate on Tex.C.S.S.B. the ago, 30 on Floor of the two weeks the State of th Senate, 17, (March 1999) Leg., 76 R.S. Virginia's parental notification bill went to (statements Shapiro) of Senators West and [Supreme [Supreme the Court] and the (tapes available from Senate Staff Services system decided their works. Court] Office) added). (emphasis And I want mention have no to bypass, bypass no whatsoever. Their law Supreme 4. The United States Court has never says, parent notified, period. A must be decided whether a notification like statute Debate on 30 on of the Tex.C.S.S.B. the Floor bypass provision Texas’s must include a to th Senate, 17, (March 1999) Leg., 76 R.S. pass constitutional muster. See Ohio v. Akron (statement Ctr., 502, 510, Shapiro) (tapes of Senator avail Reprod. Health 497 U.S. 2972, so, Office) (em (1990). able from Staff S.Ct. 111 L.Ed.2d Senate Services Even 30, added). reading phasis at the second on Senate Bill Sena Shapiro suggested judicial bypass tor that a procedure constitutionally required: was not ground, deter- Legislature the first the could consistent with this Court’s effort to required fully Legislature by the in mine what the have minor be intended formed, in it than well words chose. rather it— Legislature formed. had before rejected

but least one that would bill History Legislative D. The —at required physicians supply speci spon Senate Bill 30’s author and fied, detailed information about abortion brief, joined have filed an amicus sor women, all procedures and alternatives to legislators,6 “provid[e] other information minors, including their order to obtain sug regarding intent” and th Tex. 76 informed consent. See S.B. 1(1), that our in Doe gesting decisions (1999). Legislature But Leg., R.S. 1(1) interpreting and Doe Parental Act to opted Notification high statutory prongs three do not set general impose only require the more enough standard. We note that it is well inf “sufficiently ment a minor be the function of this Court set the stan Moreover, to third ormed.”5 meet dard, interpret but rather to the standard exception, Legislature could have re Legislature We further note set. notifying the minor quired to show that language construing statutory “courts lead, or even would give weight post-enactment should little likely lead minor rather to abuse legislators. Explanations statements Legislature than lower standard the fact, by leg produced, after the individual may notification lead to chose—that can statutory history, are islators We not mean that all imply abuse. do legis little provide guidance as what the ulti stringent these more standards would H Na collectively lature intended.” C & muster, mately pass but constitutional tionwide, Thompson, Inc. v. 903 S.W.2d made only point Legislature out that the (Tex.1994) J., concur (Hecht, 328-29 clear and choices about deliberate (citations omitted); dissenting) ring statutory wording. Inc., Rogers v. Frito-Lay, see also th(5 Cir.1980) (what hap F.2d particu- That the chose this may be after a enactment pened statute’s it statutory does lar scheme not mean history may come from members bypass procedure to be did not intend the legisla Congress, part is not but it 1(1). meaningful, See 19 as we said Doe enactment); history original tive There, at we to other looked Lastra, 852 Corp. Chem. v. De La General the laws jurisprudence interpreting states’ 916, (Tex.1993). We believe 5.W.2d 923 Legislature which our upon our modeled legislative Parental Act’s Notification what the statute. We did so ascertain history supports our decision. that must Legislature intended a minor that “mature that Legislature show demonstrate she The amici argue “rare” to make bypass and well informed” intended that a should be his noti- And the “exceptional.” decision obtain an abortion without and legislators parent. tory The factors we articulated reflects that the believed fying case, there, only a number of minors— very and we in this that small apply which of thirty-nine percent experiences, percent which are ten of the reflect other states’ senators, forty- thirty-one sponsor, Representative out and 6. Nine 5. As the Bill’s House Delisi, observed, Act fifty representa- the Parental Notification seven out one hundred See Hear tives, is not an consent statute. informed comprise representing less the amici— Comm, Affairs, ing on State Before the House Thus, Legislature. con- of the than one-third th 19, 1999) (statement Leg., (April 76 Representative R.S. assertion, amicus trary to Justice Abbott's Delisi) (audio at available does clear that the Court brief not make http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/commi1/ar- discerning intent of the guessed wrong tapes House or available from chive/c450.htm Legislature. Services). Video and Audio http://www.house.state.tx.us/au- minors who did not involve their able passage, before the Act’s or about 216 tapes available from dio/archivhc.htm minors—would a bypass. Services) seek See Fiscal (empha House Video Audio th 30, Leg., Tex.C.S.S.B. Note, R.S. added). that, although sis noted She she (1999); on Debate Tex.C.S.S.B. 30 on the personally higher like to see a barri Senate, Leg., Floor of the 76th R.S. er, by ninety percent judicial over (March 1999) (statement 17, of Senator passes granted were in other states with Shapiro) (tapes available from Senate bypass provisions. similar id. See Office). sense, Staff Services In this it is allay legislators To concerns some Legislature true thought the stat obtaining judicial bypass voiced that ute would make it harder for minors to minor, would be too onerous for a Senator notifying par obtain abortions without attorney’s Shapiro experience described ent requests judicial by and that few who works with Planned Parenthood pass anticipated. were bypass But once a representing apply Nebraska minors who sought, legisla is less clear that the for a under by waiver Nebraska’s similar tors intended them to “rare[ly]” grant pass procedure: years “in all of the ed or intended to construct an “exception this, child, one, she’s done one minor evidentiary al” barrier. While the fiscal down, only by was turned the district note for Senate Bill 30’s committee substi court, Department by appeals. tute reflects the but also the court of of Health’s assumption economic percent that “50 of And the reason this child was turned down applications filed minors are denied was she was 12 years because old. Now appealed,”7 Tex.C.S.S.B. Note, real world.” that’s The Parental Notifica Fiscal th (1999), Leg., R.S. a number of Hearing tion Act: SOBe Tex.C.S.S.B. Comm, authors, statements sponsors, bill’s the Senate on Human Ser fore sponsors companion legislation, in vices, (March 1999) Leg., 76th R.S. amici, cluding some of the suggest (statement Shapiro) of Senator (transcript did contemplate available from Senate Staff Services Of statutory strenuous a burden for the mi fice) added). (emphasis Shapiro Senator nor as the argue. amici now emphasized that, in Senate floor debate under the comparable bypass Nebraska For example, Representative Wohlge- (which, note, muth, procedure applies high we the author of the House companion standard), er “clear and convincing” proof to Senate Bill described the “ninety-nine percent” bypass extremely bypasses as “an low had begin bar to granted. with” represented been See Debate on Tex.C.S.S.B. “obtaining a Senate, bypass going Leg., is not to be a 30 on the Floor of the 76th problem.” See th (March 1999) (statement House, Debate on the Floor of the R.S. of Sena 1999) (statement Leg., (May R.S. Shapiro) (tapes tor available from Senate (audio Office).8 Representative Wohlgemuth) avail Staff Services percentage 7. We do not Legislature expected know the of burden the minors to bypasses denying. that the trial courts are judicial bypass proceedings. face in For ex assumption But the note's economic fiscal ample, Senator to Bemsen’s reference “small comports percentage with our thus far. Of exceptions” alludes to the number of minors the two cases in which we have rendered a bypass proce who would need to resort to the decision, granted application final we an loving, are dure because not blessed with this case and denied another in re Jane supporting families. See Parental Notifi Doe, (Tex.2000) ("Doe 4(11)"). 19 S.W.3d 337 Hearing Act: on cation Tex.C.S.S.B.30 Before th Comm, Services, the Senate on Human 76 suggests that we have selec Justice Hecht 10, (statement (March 1999) Leg., 4R.S. of tively quoted legislative history, the statute’s Bernsen) (transcript Senator available from citing "contrary statements” in the record. Office). Representative excerpts Senate Staff Services But the statements he have little or bearing question evidentiary no on the re Delisi's "rare cases” comment was in 354 abortion, early legislators express performing amici now for a suction

While the curettage aspiration or disagreement Legis- procedure, with how we read the vacuum enactment, only apply preg lature’s we can until the fourteenth week of is used interpretation comports nancy. generally the stat- See Medical that with Women’s structure, Voinovich, 187, plain Corp. F.3d existing language, ute’s v. 130 Prof'l (6th Cir.1997) “[sjuction legislative history. (stating If curet Legislature, and body, we to agrees tage performed up as a can sometimes be amici intent, Legis- fifteenth There pregnancy”). misunderstood their it is the week of that the method prerogative lature’s to the statute was also evidence usual amend a dilation give guidance. pre- us different This is for second trimester abortion is evacuation, cisely separation longer, complicat how doc- a more powers of ed, respect procedure. trine should While invasive Other work. we more views, “[jjudges amici’s we are aware that that the of abortion evidence indicated risk pay subsequent expres- attention to pregnancy who increases as See advances. legislative sions of intent not embodied in Akron v. Akron generally City Ctr. for of Inc., 467, any may Health, statute than enforce break rather Reprod. U.S. PosneR, (1983) contract.” Riohaed 103 S.Ct. 76 L.Ed.2d 687 (1985). (O’Connor, J., dissenting) (quoting bulletin The FedeRal Courts & College of the American Obstetricians Why E. the Court Ruled with Gynecologists: “Regardless advances Opinion to Follow technology, termi abortion midtrimester hazardous, granted application likely The Court on nations will remain more Doe’s th, emotionally disturbing noting opinions expensive, March 10 abortions.”), early indi than follow. We so because the record woman overruled did grounds by Parenthood cated both that Doe was entitled to on other Planned 833, 882, 112 further Pa. v. bypass Casey, of concern So. 505 U.S. out (1992); delay might risk. 120 L.Ed.2d 674 Green expose greater S.Ct. v. sonogram performed Bryant, that a ville Women’s Clinic testified (D.S.C.1999) 19, 2000, (stating F.Supp.2d that she was February on showed day as of that second trimester pregnant undisputed eleven weeks and one “[i]t risky to significantly more that date. therefore was fourteen abortions are She health than trimester pregnant when we our order of women first weeks issued abortions.”). at the issued our order on on March 10. Evidence admitted We undergo able hearing that the method” concern that Doe be indicated “safest is, mandated; sponse suggestion types ally when the minor that some clergy nonjudicial bypass, parents parents such as or coun who neglectful "abusive or or said, bypass, might appropriate. be She selor rights.” parental See will not assume their Comm, you’re certainly right in “And that in rare Hearing House on State Before the appropriate tell the stances when it's not th Affairs, 1999) (state (April Leg., 76 R.S. judge girl’s parents of that court of then (audio Gray) Representative available ment of duly appropriate they’re law is because sworn http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/com- at uphold the child.” ... the best interest of tapes from or available mit/archive/c450.htm Comm, Hearing Before the See House Services). Rep Audio And House Video and 19, 1999) Affairs, Leg., (April State 76th R.S. King’s point was not that resentative Delisi) (audio (statement Representative vast required would be involvement available http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/commit/ar- cases, majority need to but majority See vast of cases. involved tapes House available from chive/c450.htm Comm, Hearing House on State Before the ). quotes Services Video Audio th Affairs, 19, 1999) (state (April Leg., R.S. 76 Gray King Representatives and are found (audio King) Representative available ment bills, of other not Senate within discussions http://www.house.state.tx.us/house/com- Representative Gray used the term Bill tapes available from "exceptional” to describe the circumstances mit/archive/c450.htm Services). Audio bypass House Video and type which is constitution some

355 risky expedited if not seek curettage procedure, less suction assert that Doe did option Court, was still to her and appeal available in this her notice of relief stage stated, that was her While the decision. in large, bold-faced specifically pregnancy hearing Doe’s at the time of type: “PLEASE EXPEDITE.”9 general policies and her doctor’s about the suggest, also Hecht and Justices Owen record, procedure are the exact date March erroneously, that we issued our longer eligible that Doe would no be for the merits deliberating 10th order without procedure Any significant the safer is not. appeal. Because the can- of Doe’s delay guaranteed would have that Doe prohibit disclosing ons us from the sub- procedure. could not have the safer Jus- deliberations, or course of our we stance contend that we tices Hecht Owen process leading cannot to our describe wrong, reading were and from their of the decision to issue the order.10 Neverthe- record the time for performing the safer less, any suggestion that we issued our procedure just had passed. The record majority March without a con- 10th order issue, definitively does not settle the sensus on the merits is incorrect because a we made our decision on the side of the majority necessary consensus was to issue safety. minor’s Moreover, although the order. not our Additionally, pro- Doe initiated these we practice, previously standard is- ceedings more than a month before our opinions sued orders with to follow. Thus, March 10th order. we had to also Dellana, Texas Water Commission v. we consider that delay might additional conditionally granted a writ of mandamus call into question proceedings whether the an opinion with to follow. See 849 S.W.2d sufficiently expeditious were pass con- (Tex.1993) 808, (citing n. 1 809 36 Tex. stitutional muster. See Ohio v. Akron Ctr. Sup.Ct. (Feb. 1993)). 17, J. 556 And more Health, Reprod. 513, 497 110 U.S. at Dietz, recently, Republican v. we Party 2972; Baird, 622, S.Ct. Bellotti v. 443 U.S. granted stay opinion with an to follow (1979). 644, 3035, 99 61 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 797 all provided requested. the relief See Moreover, the rules governing pro- these 86, 87, (Tex.1997); also, 940 S.W.2d 94 see ceedings specifically provide that “[t]he Garcia, 73, e.g., Davenport v. 837 S.W.2d Court must rule as possible.” soon as Tex. (Tex.1992); Shaner, 73 Painter v. 667 PaRental Notification R. 4.3. Paren- 123, (Tex.1984); 124 v. Coalson tal Notification expressly recognize Rules Victoria, 744, City Council 610 S.W.2d expedited nature of pro- these (Tex.1980). acknowledge 747 While we ceedings may require appeals court of routine, procedure na- this issue its opinion many sixty days as proceedings ture these and the record rendering after judgment. See Tex. Pa- presented it in this case. necessitated 3.3(e). rental Notification R. While Rule 3.3, terms, applies only its to the inter- Respecting F. the Rule of Law courts, concept underlying mediate entirely Supreme rule is consistent requiring United States Court has possible. this Court rule as soon as observed that abortion is a divisive and although And highly-charged Casey, issue. See 505 U.S. Justices Hecht Owen votes, taken, positions writings appel- 9. We that we also note do not stand alone in following procedure unique in these judges personnel late and court about causes See, Doe, e.g., In N.C.App. cases. 401, re Jane 126 are confidences court shall 354, (1997); Mary 485 S.E.2d In re only through judgment, revealed a court’s Moe, Mass.App.Ct. 517 N.E.2d written or in accordance with Su- Moe, (1987); Mary Mass.App.Ct. In re preme guidelines approved for a court (1984). 469 N.E.2d history project.” TexCode Jud. Conduct Can- (3)(B)(11). B(11) part 10. Canon of the Code of Judicial discussions, provides Conduct that "[t]he Thus, proceedings trial court for further 2791. we 112 S.Ct. at There, we con- may justice. interests of personal views recognize judges’ statutory ground irresponsible the first inspire inflammatory sidered —that Nevertheless, sufficiently well highly- minor is “mature and the issue’s rhetoric. have an make the decision to judges nature does not excuse informed to charged performed without notification personal convictions abortion impose who their own legal inquiry. parents.” either of her strictly must be a into what Tex. Fam.Code 33.003(i). statutory § The other two prefer, as citizens might personally We appeal, in that not raised par- grounds her were that a minor honor parents, pro- a nor are here. involved in such right ents’ to be Legislature has But the found decision. explained, a minor As we have may to an abortion

said that Doe consent bypass un to obtain a who seeks if she dem- notifying parents without her must of the statute prong the first der is mature and sufficient- onstrates that she - (1) that is ma two she prove elements: we cannot judges, informed. As ly well (2) sufficiently well ture, that she is us. or the record before ignore the statute proves id. If she both informed. See be, may feelings our we personal Whatever evidence, of the preponderance a parts Casey, rule law.” “respect must Thus, bypass. See id. is entitled to she 868, 112 U.S. at S.Ct. application deny can a minor’s a trial court II either prove she failed to by finding that predi trial elements. The court or both Background A. finding on its in this case cated denial mi- unmarried pregnant, Doe is a Jane element and satisfy the second Doe did not She lives eighteen.11 nor soon to be maturity. finding regarding her made no and has not been with her home however, conclude, that Doe conclu We sought an order emancipated. She sufficiently that she was sively established to consent to allowing trial court her judicial bypass. well informed to obtain her notifying either of an abortion without how to first consider Consequently, we § 33.008. parents. See Tex. Fam.Code on ma nonfinding the trial court’s review the trial attorney, own retained her turity. See guardian ad litem. appointed court 33.003(e). § At the conclusion of id. Maturity B. appli- court denied Doe’s hearing, the trial findings of fact and con- and issued cation not have the burden Doe does (i), 33.003(h), (j). § of law. id. clusions See is mature. that she in this Court proving appeals, to the court of appealed below, a because, explain as we That is judgment. affirmed court’s the trial which Doe, appealing who is such as minor 33.004(a). appeals to § She now id. See the first under application of her denial 33.004(f). §id. this Court. See statute, to conclu only needs prong of the find court’s actual the trial sively refute previ- Her appeal. Doe’s second This is as fact court found Because the trial ings. opportunity our first appeal ous well in that Doe was the Texas requirements examine the formed, application her grant for us to re See In notification statute. converse as a must establish 1(1), In that record at 257. 19 S.W.3d Jane Doe failure trial court’s But the of law. or- matter courts’ reversed the lower opinion, we does not mature Doe was not to find that to the application and remanded ders par- notifying her birthday eighteenth without at the of the record We recite the state proce- ents, undergo proceedings. Since underlying wish to she did not time time, Although eighteen. Doe has turned date. at that late dure abortion after obtained an could have she 3.3(b). require conclusively her to her Tex. Parental Notifioation R. For establish maturity prevail appeal. reasons, on This dis- an these omitted element should is, perhaps, unique proceedings tinction mi- be deemed to have been found the statute, statutory under but nor’s favor if there is some evidence to it, place requires scheme as well as Here, presented support finding. Parental Notification Rules this Court mature; evidence that she is we therefore adopted under the statute. trial court ele- deem that the found this statutory

This scheme a ment in her favor. requires both timely complete judgment support dissent, argues In her Justice Owen bypass application. the denial of a minor’s principles “well-established common-law First, if the trial court does not hold a regarding appellate require review” us to hearing application or rule on a minor’s an recognize implied finding that Doe is limits, statutory within time appli- an though mature as this were omitted granted cation is a matter as of law. See purported element of Doe’s claim. This 38.003(h). addition, § if Tex. FaM.Code principle, “common-law” and most of the the trial hearing court holds a and denies it, support upon cases cited to are based time, application an within the but allotted Texas Rule of Civil which Procedure does not also issue findings written of fact that, provides one or when more elements law, application and conclusions of found, of a claim or defense have been granted, thereby deemed implying findings elements, unrequested sup- “omitted when contrary to the trial judgment. court’s See evidence, ported by supplied by id. will be presumption support judgment.” A trial court that fails to make a Thus, P. 299. argument Tex.R. Civ. finding on one of the two elements of the goes, if there is some supporting evidence statutory first prong does not run afoul the trial court’s failure to find that requirements these negative because a mature, judgment minor is must be finding only on one element supports deni affirmed. al of the application. minor’s But because the minor must both establish elements to acknowledges Justice Owen succeed, an appellate court that deter Rule 299 conflicts with section 33.003 and conclusively mines the minor estab apply. does not But under gener even its lished the on element which the trial court al principles, findings omitted are based its denial must confront the effect of supplied if they necessary judg are to the the trial finding court’s failure to make a See, Smith, e.g., ment. v. Wisdom on the other element. This failure to find (1948); Tex. 209 S.W.2d 166-67 uncertainty, creates because it could re State, Bednarz v. 142 Tex. 176 S.W.2d flect either the minor met her burden (1943). explained, As we have proof on that element or that did she negative finding on one element of the first By not. providing application that an prong is alone sufficient support denial granted deemed if a trial court fails to Thus, of the application. implied find required make findings, the statute indi ing on the necessary second element is not cates that uncertainty we must resolve this judgment general to the and the principle put the minor’s favor if she has behind the rale does not authorize such a evidence of the element the trial court did Furthermore, finding. ex as we have Additionally, contrary not find. it is plained, finding a deemed on an omitted expedited proceedings nature of these against element the minor would con require a remand when the trial court fails trary to all, Legislature’s intent deem particular findings. to issue After our prohibit ing application granted if the trial court appeals own rules courts of remanding timely under findings. circumstances. See fails to make conclude, the trial court reasons, foregoing we we cannot infer

For these did, from a information that Doe obtained decision on trial court based its the risks associ- provider about health-care not mature. that Doe was determination and that under- with an abortion she ated Rather, Doe estab- whether we consider those risks. stood informed well lished that she is to an to consent to make the decision that appeals The court of held notifying parent. abortion without 1(1) second Doe satisfy failed to the Doe to factor, requires the minor show which Sufficiently Informed Well C. the alternatives to “that understands she 1(1), we out three ele In Doe set implications.” their abortion and this determi proof necessary for ments of the is not at 256. While minor First, that minor must show nation. the decision, her she must justify to required information from has obtained she given she has demonstrate that “be able to health risks about the provider health-care her alterna to thoughtful consideration that she an abortion and associated with the tives, keeping and including adoption to apply those risks as understands that the at 256. We also noted child.” Id. 19 S.W.3d at pregnancy. her See keeps aware that if she minor should be Second, that she under must show she child, the father requires the law the and abortion alternatives to stands the support of the child. in the financial assist Third, id. implications. their See FajvlCode (citing id. at See Tex. is aware of must show that she she 154.001). § un aspects of psychological emotional that had not trial court found Doe id. at 256. We See dergoing an abortion. alternatives considered her thoughtfully in turn to these factors each of examine un- not that she did because it concluded Doe has established whether determine keeping benefits of the intrinsic derstand “sufficiently that she is of law a matter and the court adoption, child or informed.” well the trial Specifically, agreed. appeals benefits would Doe what the court asked found that Doe The trial court baby to carried the term. if she risks attendant be of the apprised been “well actu- benefit would be responded that the Doe’s testimo childbirth.” to abortion and child, candidly ad- she having the but ally finding. Doe testi fully supports this ny what could not be sure mitted that she discussed abortion that she had fied she is might be since benefits there and in other briefly with a doctor procedure joy Doe testified about a mother. not a counselor. She more detail with much children working experiences she understanding proce her related volunteer, taken a that she had risks as a attendant detail its dure some high her school. offered class parenting ex procedure. She during and after had considered she She also testified post-opera understanding pressed adoption did not feel adoption, but requirements. precautions tive she alternative because a realistic an was performed nurse also testified carrying up after the child give could not and that age fetal to determine ultrasound testi- further to term. She pregnancy her compli the chance understood that she baby worry that that she would in fied point at this procedure cations from the environment have an unsuitable would but would great was not pregnancy pro- not adoptive parents that the progressed. pregnancy as the increase The trial care. love or proper it vide the understanding that her She testified understand that Doe did court found obtain legally possible would still putting the child or keeping benefits birthday, but eighteenth after abortion and denied adoption up child undergo would not that she stated application. From at that late date. procedure 1(1) testimony, adoption op- we wrote in Doe that a was not a realistic When “benefits, minor must considered the grow tion for her because she would emo- risks, consequences” of the various tionally child after birth attached we did options, suggest not intend to unwilling give and would be the child trial courts should create checklists that a testimony does up. Doe’s shows she minor must recite order to establish perceive any carrying benefits to thoughtfully that she has considered her baby to term in her current situation. The options. 19 S.W.3d at 255. That a minor adoption undeniable benefits of the court does not share the about court’s views thus, Doe, im- appeals identified are what might the benefits of her alternatives material. not be does mean that she has not testimony Doe’s that she demonstrates thoughtfully options considered her or ac understands the alternatives to abortion as quired sufficient information about them. they apply to her and that has she is, course, beyond dispute It par that thoughtfully implications. considered their enting placing an infant for adoption Doe information alter- received about her can deeply rewarding. be The fundamen natives from several different sources. tal importance parent-child relation seeking organiza- Before information from ship society long our recog been tions, Doe read books and did on research Quilloin Walcott, nized. See v. 434 U.S. the Internet about her alternatives. She 246, 255, 98 S.Ct. 54 L.Ed.2d 511 organization also visited an where she re- (1978). And, court of ob appeals ceived additional oral and written informa- served, the adoption may pro alternative tion that advised her of alternatives. her “positive long lasting vide and feelings While she did not recite in detail infor- good will and giving might selfless she materials, mation contained written experience not giving from life to the that she testified she had read and consid- world, child bringing it into the but par- ered them. These materials discuss also from a much giving wanted newborn enthood, abortion, 1(1) adoption, and the bene- family....” to an adoptive But Doe does fits and drawbacks of each. One section require mechanically the minor to potential parenting list or recite the her on discusses the difficulties of benefits of Instead, options. See at 19 S.W.3d but states a child could be parenting, the focus of the inquiry is whether the family. a welcome addition to her thoughtfully minor has considered her al organization materials also state that the ternatives, see id. and “the examin provide pregnancy can information about ing weigh court must her situation not care, skills, finan- parenting and sources of against against the ideal but a standard help pregnant cial for women. The section situation, understanding basic of her her this, too, adoption on makes clear that choices, Doe, options.” and her In re option. a viable The materials note that Kan.App.2d 866 P.2d are there more families interested (1994). adopt than are children to adopting there family go so that the child would to a concept inherently of “benefits” is really a child. on abor- wants The section subjective; person may what one consider explains procedure tion comments benefit, may another not. That Doe that some feel is not moral while abortion does accept pursue the alternate it more moral to have an others claim is benefits to abortion does not mean that child. Doe abortion than unwanted also not given she has those alternatives Moreover, focusing other materials abortion thoughtful consideration. read even provided greater detail answered though may generally recognized there be alternative, procedure. Doe testi- questions benefits to an those about benefits through fied read light must be considered in of the minor’s that she these materials particular According situation. to Doe’s several times. (Tex.1999) dis- J. (Hecht, an hour and a S.W.2d for more than spoke Doe review). petition for occasions, senting denial of

half, with one on two different The coun- counselors. organization’s that Doe further reflects The record if she happen selor told Doe what response answers gave reasoned also had keep the child. Doe decided to asked options. her When questions about person with a who conversations several child, thought keeping the if had about she teenage teenagers and pregnant counsels very be diffi- that it would explained that, while both mothers. Doe testified and desire considering age cult for her urged abortion supportive, neither were expressed She to further her education. Instead, child term. carrying over and have a college go her desire her own wanted her to make both career, she would like and stated that decision. having down before married settled did not testified she a child. Doe people ex- speaking

In addition to parenthood. She area, ready herself with believe spoke perienced the fa- requires law in a similar understood who had been people several support, but concluded pay ther to child who had spoke to relative situation. She not be able and the father would abortion, had an that she teenager who abor- testified that the child. She tion, support not have to teenagers who did and two babies, at their teenagers kept who chil- two raising now their abortions and are married, very led whom had least one of that the relative was dren. Doe testified it they take decision, could hard lives wished and the two teen- happy with her regretted back. kept their children agers who having they were

their decisions because said, courts’ As we a child at a having difficulties as result the minor is whether inquiry fundamental teenager had an young age. The who her alterna thoughtfully considered has proce- Doe talked to about abortion not on must focus inquiry This tives. thought processes her dure and about generally minor has recited whether the She told choosing to have an abortion. consequences of benefits or recognized list she had an abortion glad Doe that she is Instead, decision. justify her in order it. regret and does account whether must take into inquiry weighed her has considered or the minor did not seek information Doe cir particular of her light be alternatives anyone from who would counseling minor has estab cumstances. When having her an abortion. against Justice in a rational engaged lished that she that her fail argues in his dissent HeCht decision-making process and informed the trial court’s supports to do so ure concerns foreclose concluded realistic well finding she was 1(1) alternatives, be denied cannot she in Doe her But this Court held informed. general failing to list statutory bypass for to seek infor required minor is not that a It must be might see. that others benefits group or view any particular from mation court’s is not the that “it remembered informa “she has obtained point long so as judgment its superimpose responsibility relevant considerations tion on the the minor on its moral convictions that en choosing sources of reliable should of action she course regard in to what thoughtful to make a able her Ex body.” her own reference to Al take with at 257. 19 S.W.3d formed decision.” (Ala. 722, 725 618 So.2d Anonymous, parte may question though Justice Hecht 1993). is not whether she decided, 1(1) question correctly whether Doe approve that we would making a decision the law. The “there is no doubt with, she is suffi whether but agree of or choose simply pick and Court cannot the decision make ciently informed to announced the rule it has cases which id. her own. See Vickery, 999 Vickery v. apply.” will likely problems within the conclusively established would cause Doe also out about her family parents emotional and if her found that “she is ... aware decision, possibly even lead her and could aspects undergoing psychological (I), Doe based this parents In to abandon her. abortion.” re Jane Doe parents’ on her reaction Doe to an older relative and conclusion spoke Doe’s deci a relative and one of another minor about their abortion abortions friends, parents’ well as her reactions and how felt about them. After sions Nevertheless, this, past. of other events Doe’s Doe discussed emotional effects counselor, that in the future she would organization’s Doe believed abortion with abor- written materials be to tell her about the gave who also about able consequences tion. emotional abortion. Doe read these materials several times. factors, all considering After of these Although did not the emotional she discuss felt comfortable Doe concluded that she consequences anyone op of abortion with with her decision and that she would not abortion, posed to she required was not guilt. might While we burdened do so. See id. at 257. conclusion, Doe conclu- disagree with her “thoughtful that it was sively established that, Doe testified after these consulting and informed.” Id. sources, she many understood that women experience guilt after an abortion and dissent, cites the his Hecht Justice some experience depression, women but support the trial following evidence provided many abortion also women finding that Doe was not sufficient- court’s feeling with a of relief. did not mere- (1) ly well informed: “Doe admitted that ly consider these consequences emotional (2) inexperienced;” “Doe young she is abstract; she carefully considered ap- has never had to make decision each how of these alternatives would affect having an proaching the seriousness her emotionally. She reasoned that all of (3) abortion;” and did not want to Doe her guilt, choices would involve but that confront her about her decision she felt most comfortable with the decision disapprove. But these because to have an abortion. bearing considerations have no on whether well informed. While was Doe also indicated that she understood maturity, they might be relevant to Doe’s gravity of her decision. She consid- not based trial court’s decision was ered how abortion would affect her emo- Moreover, upon maturity. Justice tionally in light of its serious conse- experience focus on the minor’s Hecht’s quences. Doe asked to see the fetus on misplaced. Supreme As the Alabama video, the ultrasound testifying that she every Court case where a explains, “[i]n considered it responsibility her to do so. involved, minor would not female we Doe also testified that she understood and experience find the of an expected considered fetus’s development. Doe adult female.... female [N]o minor that her understood decision terminate pass experience would be able to test if pregnancy irrevocable, her was and conse- experience a criterion.” adult-level were quently recognized the seriousness of her parte Anonymous, Ex at 725. 618 So.2d decision. She also an considered abor- tion’s spiritual effects on her well-being Ill concluded, based on personal her spir- beliefs, itual would not have an Conclusion adverse effect. reasons, For the foregoing we hold that Doe also considered how her decision to Doe conclusively statutory established have an abortion family would affect requirements judicial bypass. to obtain a relations. See id. She testified that it We therefore appeals’ reverse the court of judgment “predetermined.”3 decisions

judgment granting render Court’s as application bypass. Doe’s for posi- Yet it is he who has taken one Further, always deny. complains he tion-— concurring Justice filed a ENOCH about the Court’s workload and rushed joined opinion, by Justice BAKER. decisions, activity implying that unanticipated.4 it was otherwise Yet he concurring Justice GONZALES filed a rules, who recommended Court which joined opinion, by Justice ENOCH. enactment, follow re- HECHT filed a dissenting Justice quire courts to Jane the lower decide opinion. well, days.5 cases two within business As similarly expe- he knew this Court would Justice OWEN filed a dissenting cases, dite even in absence these opinion. Finally, stricture. time Justice a dissenting Justice ABBOTT filed excoriates its also Hecht opinion. “judicial because Apparently, activism.”6 colleagues’ expression he ENOCH, mocks his joined by Justice Justice BAKER, concurring. feelings the issues in their about personal cases, judge is an these he believes that agree I with the Court’s she refuses to succumb activist if he or additional concurrence. Justice Gonzales’ who, he feelings.7 Yet it is those personal Therefore, join I both. dissents, exemplifies dan- through his also, I, separately But must write passion. judge acts gers present when point. ago, Long make another I learned commit- judge’s how a only question I can more my my that the emotions influenced judicial restraint principle ment decisions, the I A judge. less acted like a if, he feels anything whenever can mean ago, years few pas- was so Hecht Justice issue, feels free he also about strongly he sionate about issue that branded his colleagues judi- And it into a dishonest.1 is obvious beliefs personal his translate his in all strident dissents four Jane explain cannot otherwise cial decision. has, cases that Doe once Hecht rests, Justice which his the foundation again, passion. succumbed to For he now dissents, to cite to he has failed for in five colleagues his brands “activists” interpreting any other state from case this, pro-abortionists.2 He does not be- statute, several such though even a similar charge, there is truth to his but cause fifteen for operation statutes have been rea- overcomes simply passion because his years or more. soned discussion. con- this Court’s continued Because attacks, heat- although Justice Hecht’s confidentiality in these ed, preserving cern for example, are shallow. For he assails (Doe 3), Ellis, 310-11 19 S.W.3d Corp. S.W.2d Jane Doe 3 Maritime v. 977 1. Overseas J., 4(1), J., (Tex.1996) dissenting (Tex.2000) (Hecht, dissenting); Doe 537 (Hecht, 19 J., application denial of for writ of er- dissenting). S.W.3d at 330 (Hecht, ror)(colleagues' "would have been dif- votes public.”). ferent had been Forms, Rules 5. Parental Notification Texas 3.3(c). 2.5(d) and Rules (Doe 4(1)), re 4 19 S.W.3d 322 2. In Jane Doe (Tex.2000)(HECHT, dissenting). J. See, 4(1), 19 at e.g., S.W.3d (Hecht, J., dissenting). Id. 373(Hecht, J., dissenting). (Doe 2), 4. See In re Jane Doe J., (Tex.2000) (Hecht, at 328. 7. See 19 S.W.3d dissenting); In re matters,8 he, also challenge again, separately must But once wrote I Justice practice revealing publish chapter Hecht on his routine and verse the minor’s con- testimony.14 appear fidential It would “in public complete to the detail” the mi- nothing intends more than testimony nors’ these cases.9 The hear- Justice Hecht can, mi- punish, personally as best he ings in are to be these cases confidential— judicial for Al- seeking bypass. nors requirement this recognize, Court’s rules though promises the law them confidential- which voted himself for Hecht Justice ity, notoriety. promises he them days.10 he dispassionate more Yet now rule, for apparent jurispru- violates that no Finally, recalling end I Justice more, purpose. dential What his disclo- began colleagues attack on his his Hecht posi- sures leave the Court in an untenable first Jane Doe case. Without very in the tion. The cannot respond because basis, any factual he launched two rhetori- require to do so would it to reveal whatev- broadsides, cal broadsides that he used to pieces er other of the record remain confi- establish for the themes his dissents. dential. Those broadsides are that this Court’s standard is so low that it is no standard at example, As an writings note his all, and that our standard the flood opens Jane 4 cases. Jane Doe 4’s first gates bypasses.15 Today he appeal, Justice Hecht disclosed that reiterates his that the theme Court con- In re Jane Doe 311 spoke to her minor strues the Parental Notification Act “as mother about her situation instead of pur- liberally allowing minors to have abortions suing her case on remand.12 But to what involving parents....”16 without their issue in In re Jane Doe was the informa- k say But thing enough while to loud tion about Jane Doe 3 relevant? None. long enough may people convince some Furthermore, issue Jane Doe 3’s it, believe that does not make it true. And case was never whether she would tell her proven neither of his broadsides have to be question mother. The was what would true. happen when her mother told her father and her father became intoxicated.13 As to passed Several months have since Jus- part story, the Court doesn’t first attack and to date tice Hecht’s yet and, ending know the pro- because the four Jane Does come before this ceedings confidential, are case, Jane Doe Court. In the mat- wouldn’t it in any reveal event. Markedly, ter was remanded with instructions for agreed with the Court’s trial courts on how to evaluate whether a Justice Hecht decision on Jane Doe appeal. 4’s second minor is in- mature and well See, 3, 305; 4(I), 4(I), e.g., 8. Doe 19 S.W.3d at Doe 12. See Doe 19 at 327-28 S.W.3d (Hecht, J., 19 S.W.3d at 323. dissenting). See, (Doe 1(I)), e.g., 9. In re Jane Doe 19 3, 13. See S.W.3d at Doe 19 312. 249, (Tex.2000)(HECHT,J., 276 dissent ing). (Doe 4(II)), 14. See In re Jane Doe 4 19 S.W.3d J., (Tex.2000)(HECHT, concurring). 337 Compare 10. Texas Parental Notification Rules 1(I), and Forms, Rules 1.3 and 1.4. Doe with 19 See, 1(I), e.g., 15. 19 Doe S.W.3d at 276 (Hecht, J., 2, dissenting), S.W.3d at 277 Doe 2, (Hecht, J., dissenting); 19 Doe S.W.3d at J., 19 dissenting), S.W.3d at 290-91 (Hecht, (Hecht, J., 3, dissenting); 298 Doe 19 S.W.3d (Hecht, J., Doe 19 S.W.3d at 309 dissent J., 4(I), dissenting); at 309 Doe (Hecht, 4(1), ing), and Doe 19 S.W.3d at 327 (Hecht, 327-28) (Hecht, J., dissenting). S.W.3d at J., dissenting). (Tex.2000). 11. 19 S.W.3d 300 S.W.3d at See 19 return, granted explosive formed. On will not have rhetoric Hecht’s jurisprudential judicial bypass. Doe Her second debate about Jane advanced observes, proper application as the for of the Parental No- hearing, lasted Instead, tification Act. required testify great intemperance his hours her to political pushed and social hot buttons detail. that have discomfited of this State citizens 2 n case The Court remanded Jane Doe officials, needlessly, elected and their for on how to with instructions trial courts opportunity to whether the Pa- no assess the best interest and abuse evaluate having rental Notification Act its de- was judicial bypass.17 Jane Doe prongs effect.20 sired 2 has returned I caution this Court. time Now based the facts that that we do not know whether the trial statute, reveal, it is that the plain could granted on remand bypass court including interpretation, Court’s is whether Jane Doe dropped applica- her its intended having Although effect. tion. prohibit cannot minors from obtain- state exactly her dropping application But abortion, it can has created a ing happened what Doe whose Jane upon sufficiently impressing rule of law hearing initial occurred before the Court de- minors the seriousness of the abortion 2,Doe issued its in Doe 1 and instructions and that the cision State wants light case was and whose remanded informed. From the Court now what than continue instructions.18 Rather those knows, guess I venture educated for a with the effort meet the standard happened in case of Jane Doe 3 what actually judicial bypass that this Court is, probability, in all now the rule in Texas. requires, parent. Jane Doe notified a minor of what she becomes aware Once As for Jane Doe also whose case was judicial by- go through obtain a must hearing to allow have a remanded her to she will choose for herself to involve pass, instructions, according she Court’s parents. her to this denied a returned Court but was emotions, a judge When influenced judicial bypass.19 Like Jane often over- perspective, loses hearing second and her testi- lengthy case, times, resorting stating at mony was detailed. unbecoming. My col- writing that have been beginning, writings From the cases league’s these Justice Hecht’s do unsupported by inappropriate. Deep were facts. convictions charges middle, his col- judge respecting in the facts are that the Here excuse Leg- litigants, law. appeared leagues, Doe cases as the or the Jane expected the Court has dis- islature GONZALES, joined by Justice Justice Legisla- them in posed of the manner ENOCH, concurring. coming As expected. ture for cases judgment and “flood,” fully join I Court’s they appear only to have come end, is no evidence agree that there spurt. opinion. In the expected Justice Low, Lawmak Standard Too State 17. See 19 S.W.3d at 284. Notification Says, er News, March Daily 24, 2000 Amarillo 3,Doe 18. See 19 S.W.3d at 300. 1A; Christy Again Frac Abortion Hoppe, Court, Morning March tures 23, News, Dallas 4(II), 4(I), 19 327; 19. See Doe S.W.3d at Flood, A1; Maty Creates Law 2000 at Confu 19 at 340. S.W.3d Abortion, Journal, March sion on Wall Street Tl; Cases Abortion Hight, Robison, at Bruce Colleagues on Justice Blasts Clay 2000 22, Court, Austin Ameri Law, High Friction on Generate Abortion Texas Chronicle, Houston A1; 19, 23, Connie Al; 2000 at High Hight, can-Statesman, March March 2000 Bruce Law, Mabin, Bypassed Family as Court Allows Sena Bypassing Intent Abortion Court Abortion, Star-Telegram, March Says, tor March Fort Worth American-Statesman, Austin Bl; Robbins, 11, 24, Court's A. 2000 at 1 Mary 2000 at Alice

365 supporting the trial finding Legislature’s court’s Once we discern the intent effect, Jane Doe was not in- sufficiently put well we must it into even if we formed. And I agree contrary might policy ourselves have made different position is established as a matter of law. choices. id. See this,

Only appeal starting point understanding after remand of The cases, the first of four provision Jane Doe has the Parental Notification Act is its granted a application by- Court minor’s that a professional may per medical pass notifying parents her before she con- form an abortion on a minor without first case, sents to an abortion.1 Yet in notifying parents. each one of the See Tex. 33.003(a). struggled § Court has policy render the Fam.Code decision decision, correct and some members of the here is protect parents’ rights clear—to strongly disagreed. Court have The tenor involve in their daughters’ themselves de opinions unmistakably have been encourage cisions and to that involvement. contentious. It suggested has been that But that is starting point. the Court’s decisions are by per- Legislature motivated did not make this (Hecht, ideology. Instead, sonal See 19 S.W.3d 367 right Legislature absolute. J., dissenting). To contrary, every created exceptions, allowing three a minor agrees member of this Court duty notifying parents avoid if she can judge (1) of a is to follow law as written show: she is mature and Legislature.2 This case nois different. well informed to make the decision to have The Court’s decision is based on the lan- performed abortion without notification guage (2) of the Parental Notification parent, Act as of either notification of the Legislature written and on parents estab- not be the minor’s best (3) interest, lished rules of Any sugges- construction. notification of tion that something going may sexual, else is physical, lead to or emotional simply wrong. abuse of the minor. See Tex. Fam.Code 33.003(i). §

Legislative intent polestar is the of stat- utory City construction. See LaPorte v. The dissenting opinions suggest that the (Tex.1996). Barfield, 288, 898 S.W.2d 292 exceptions general to the rule of notifica Our role judges requires put we tion be very require high should rare and aside personal our own views of what we proof. respectfully standard of submit enacted, might like to see policy instead do that these are Leg decisions for the our best to discern what the Legislature islature. And I nothing find this statute actually intended. Fitzgerald See v. Ad- directly Legislature show that the in Inc., vanced Spine Sys., Fixation 996 tended such a narrow construction. As 864, (Tex.1999). demonstrates, S.W.2d 865-66 take We the words of the statute as the surest certainly could have written section guide intent. See id. at 866. to make it harder to bypass 33.033® Doe, (Tex. Inc., 1. See In re Jane Spine Sys., 19 S.W.3d 249 vanced Fixation 996 S.W.2d 2000)(Doe 1(I) ); 2, 864, In re Jane Doe S.W.3d (Tex.1999)(Gonzalez, J.); 19 Phillips 866 v. (Tex.2000); 3, 278 In re Jane Doe 19 S.W.3d Beaber, 655, (Tex. 995 S.W.2d 658 (Tex.2000); 4, 300 In re Jane Doe 19 S.W.3d J.); 1999)(O’Neill, Bay In re Area Citizens (Tex.2000), remand, 322 appeal In re after Abuse, 371, Against Lawsuit 982 S.W.2d 380 4, (Tex.2000). Jane Doe 19 S.W.3d 337 J.); (Tex.1998)(Abbott, Lab., Seg Abbott Inc. v. ura, (Tex.1995)(Phillips, 907 S.W.2d 512 Allen, 2. See National Liab. & Fire Ins. Co. v. J.); City Barfield, C LaPorte v. 898 S.W.2d (Tex.2000)(Baker, J.); S.W.3d 525 Quick v. (Tex.1995)(Hecht, J.); Bridge- Austin, City 7 S.W.3d 135-36 stone/Firestone, J., Glyn-Jones, v. Inc. (Tex.1999)(Hankinson, dissenting); Fleming (Tex.1994)(Enoch, J., Rylander, Foods S.W.2d Texas Inc. v. 6 dissent J.); (Tex.1999)(Owen, Fitzgerald ing). v. Ad 366 right of

parent’s to in decisions best interest. While the ramifications be involved affecting daughters. their 19 such a law and the results of the Court’s See S.W.3d Likewise, parts troubling But not. of may personally at 350. it did here be decision directly legislative history parent, my obligation the a as a statute’s me as it is to suggestion Legisla judge impartially apply contradict the that the to laws of this the very my to rare. on bypasses imposing ture intended be state without moral view (detailing legislative history). id. at Legislature. See 352 the decisions of the Justice Thus, to our charges construe the Parental Notification Heoht decision demon con narrowly bypasses, Act so as to eliminate strates the determination to Court’s to create not to the the or hurdles are strue Parental Notification Act as simply statute, found words of would believes the Act should construed the the Court be act See judicial Legislature be an unconscionable activ and not as the intended. I hold judge, rights ism. As the 19 at 373-74 dissent S.W.3d (Hecht, J., education, protect guide respectfully disagree. to and This deci parents ing). the health, safety, and of their the Court’s determina development sion demonstrates discharge as the we our important children one of most tion to see to it that society. judges, person in our But I cannot rewrite rights responsibilities as and parental rights ideology public the statute to make abso al is subordinated to the lute, absolute, is in the of the virtually particularly or will that reflected words Act, when, here, the Legislature including elected Parental the Notification 1(1) provisions allowing bypass. to do The Court said in Doe not so. that a must make least three minor correctly majority opinion Because the may by showings the before she exercise the as written the facts applies Act to “mature rights Legislature gave the pass record, I concur. un sufficiently and well informed” minors 33.003(i). 1(I), In 19 der section re Doe HECHT, dissenting. Justice (Tex.2000). showings

S.W.3d These to that the can demon are ensure minor a statute construing Often court knowledge maturity and strate level that it had more information about wishes intended Legislature seems have Legislature issu- intended. Since what passed primarily a statute that when construing the Paren- ing opinions its first parental rights, but also confers protects Act,1 this has re- tal Notification Court minors. judicial bypass rights to certain extraordinary ceived assistance maturity Based the evidence Doe’s reviewing Members limitations knowledge, I conclude the history of the statute. The Senate 33.003(f) upon parental rights section legislation, together sponsors House Therefore, I compelled here. am apply forty-six oth- eight other senators and grant application. Doe’s have informed representatives, er construction important appreciate that as amici curiae its It is Court incorrect, is statutory scheme of the statute to date Legislature adopted hearings provided citations rights have that subordinates support their in on the statute of a well debates case mature certainly not minor, if the minor has view. While formed even leg- views of post-enactment relationship parents, with her and bound ideal islators, wrong simply dis- if notifying even record that parts place minor in emotional miss the support-of cited in may legislators in her these in fact be physical danger, but 4(II), In (Tex.2000); re Doe (Tex.2000); In re In re Doe 19 S.W.3d (Tex.2000); In re (Tex.2000). 19 S.W.3d 278 S.W.3d 337 (Tex.2000); re Doe 19 S.W.3d 300 position. their Relying instead on a few we should the Parental apply Notifica- minor, isolated comments it can find the tion Act Legisla- as it is written the view, history support its own ture according personal or to our own and disregarding significant portions of beliefs.3 contrary, record to the appears question This to be a hard the Legislature: dares got If have not we comprise majority. Justices who One meaning right, statute’s then amend it. previ- wonders what the Court has done “This,” Court, says the precisely “is how ously only obliquely when it confronted the separation powers doctrine should question duty. of whether it should do its

work.”2 But at least these are able to Justioes I disagree. The disregard Court’s utter they confirm that the right reached for the legislative history by fifty-six cited answer: legislators support of their view of the In reaching grant the decision to Jane Parental Act Notification is an insult to application Doe’s [to have abortion legislators those personally, to the office without notice to either parents], of her hold, separation and to the powers put we have personal aside our view- between the two govern- branches of the points and job endeavored to do our as ment. I cannot conceive of another con- is, judges to interpret apply text which the pay Court would so little —that Legislature’s will itas has been ex- legislators’ heed to concerning statements pressed in the statute.4 meaning of a statute. The Court ada- mantly refuses reason, to listen to all and Still, they say, laying personal aside views plausible explanation is that the terribly has been hard to do. a section Justioes who comprise majority— opinion bearing the remarkable la- Phillips, Enooh, Chief Justice Justice Jus- bel, “Respecting Law”, the Rule of Bajker, HaNkinson, tice JustiCE Justice join Justioes who Court’s con- and Justice Gonzales—have re- O’Neill, fess: impair solved to Legislature’s purposes might personally We prefer, as citizens in passing the Act, Parental Notification parents, that a minor honor her which were to teenage reduce abortions parents’ right to be involved in such a increase involvement in their profound decision. But the Legislature children’s decisions. has said that Doe may consent to an The Court is well aware of the near- notifying abortion without her parents if universal criticism of its construction of she demonstrates that she is mature and Act, the Parental Notification and the de- sufficiently well informed.5 fensiveness of majority and concurring opinions striking. I cannot recall ever themselves, After struggling say having seen court or its members so majority, they have decided Justioes abject in apologizing for their decision in the end to follow the rule of law: profuse so in proclaiming integ- their own As judges, we cannot ignore the statute rity as this Court today. Launching its or the record before us. Whatever our opinion with a Proper discourse on “The be, personal feeling may we must “re- Judges”, Role of the Court makes this spect the rule of law.”6 extraordinary statement:

In deciding this case squarely we con- To personal this Justice Gonzales adds his question whether, front the judges, testimony:

2. Ante at 354. 5. Ante at 356.

3. Ante at 350. 6. Ante at 356. 4. Ante at 350. Pa- sponsors the of the legislative the ramifications of Parental two [the

While Notification and the of the fifty-four results rental Act and other Act] Notification may be personally Court’s decision here only view legislators, which not states their my troubling parent, as a it is to me history purpose the and but statute’s obligation judge impartially apply to as extensively to the record. legislative cites imposing the laws state without this Finally, view of persists the Court in its. my moral the views on decisions to liberally allowing the Act minors as Legislature.7 par- involving have without their abortions activists, say are not the We overwhelming ents the solid and against majority. they in today’s Surely JUSTICES and reality supporters the statute’s know that like these do not remonstrances the view—that opponents all shared same allay doubts but exacerbate them. mi- make for it harder statute much, lady doth too meth- protest “The notifying nors to abortions without obtain inks.”8 The has construed scores Court parent. seeing any pro- need to statutes without construing any other If the were Court today’s with which vide the reassurances statute, by now conceded it would have In all other opinion slathered. those law, Logic, legisla- it wrong. was sought Court to demonstrate its cases the by the them- history legislators tive cited fidelity purpose to intent and against con- argue selves all the Court’s strength integrity analysis, of its Act. the Parental Notification struction of If by empty rhetoric. the Court’s ig- on this Court Why would six Justioes law practice respect the rule of usual is to if legislators trying were fifty-six nore so, say why does it have having without to rather their own to the law than follow say so unless the today, repeatedly, to merely a rhe- This is not personal views? deeply senses itself that its flawed Court an an- torical if Court has question; statutory makes resort to rhetoric analysis swer, Its to do so give it it. refusal should essential? con- the Court enough. is answer Because aspects opinion Three the Court’s be- Notifi- tinues misconstrue Parental to First, the to its rhetoric. Court claims lie case, I misapplies cation it this Act ruling opinion, without announced its dissent. contrary con- practice, “on the its usual undergo a less that Doe be able cern

risky option if that procedure, abortion to her and that was her was still available deciding this case The haste Court’s fact, had her finished decision.”9 issuing opinion merits without time pregnancy week of fourteenth unjustified. its decision explaining ruled, nothing the record the Court procedures from its Court’s deviation usual delay, let alone a few suggests its again determination demonstrates way. in any days, impaired would have applications for abor- minors’ see it that Moreover, it if was concerned Court are tions notification without none of the same says, now showed summarily granted. quickly and J, in In re Doe which appeal concern this appeal her notice of filed appeal, day filed the before and we received Court on March fifteen days waited which Court evening. record fax late Second, rule, al- opinion. as I have application by order noted, granted mostly ready ignores late on the afternoon filed without extraordinary brief on behalf amicus J., (Gonzales, concurring). 9. Ante at 349. 7. Ante at 366 Shakespeare, act sc. 2. William Hamlet ter, March 10.10 Four Justices dissented from and was in her preg- fifteenth week of the issuance of a decision on the nancy day merits after the Court ruled. The without an accompanying opinion.11 The explanation hurrying Court’s for pro- explains Court now its haste as follows: cess is thus nonsense: “we needed to rule when we did so that Doe could advan- take the record indicated both Doe was tage procedures of medical longer no avail- bypass entitled to a and out of concern able passes to her.” This is what any delay might further expose her careful consideration in the paren- Court’s greater to risk.... We issued our or- tal notification cases. The point Court can der on the concern that Doe be to able to in nothing the record to indicate if undergo risky the less suction curettage days Court had taken ten to issue an procedure, if that option was still avail- opinion, as it appeal- did when Doe first able to her and that was her decision. ed,14 in re Doe ¾15 days, or six it as did While the stage pregnancy of Doe’s that Doe would have been adversely hearing time and her doctor’s way. in any contrary, harmed On the Doe general policies about the procedure are just had requested and received a seven- record, in the the exact date that Doe day in continuance the court appeals would no longer eligible for the safer immediately before appealed she to this procedure Any is not. significant delay Court. guaranteed would have that Doe could not have the safer procedure.12 Moreover, if concern that 1Doe be able risky procedure have less was what Doe in testified the trial court at her prompted the Court to hasten its decision first hearing on February 10 that she had case, in her none showed of the same first learned she was pregnant eight-and- concern for Doe ap- who had filed her (i.e., one-half days) weeks 59.5 earlier. peal day before 1Doe did.16 The She testified at hearing on remand on days Court waited fifteen in to rule Doe 4’s February 29 that an ultrasound exam on case, until nearly she was twelve weeks’ February 19 showed that she had been pregnant, then remanded her to the trial (78 pregnant eleven day weeks and one court start over. When she returned to days). Assuming that she learned she was eight days later, this Court thir- then pregnant days about ten after she actually teen pregnant, weeks’ the Court waited pregnant, became her testimony con- was days deny twelve appeal,17 her thus sistent with the results of the ultrasound denying risky” access to a “less Thus, exam. according record, to the abortion, even by shaky the Court’s medi- had pregnant been for fourteen full weeks cal reckoning. Had the Court ruled soon- (98 days) on March 10. er, 4Doe could have notified her If, believed, as the Court pro- safest and obtained an abortion in her first tri- cedures could be used “until the four- mester. But the Court was not concerned week”, teenth or even “up to the 4; fifteenth for Doe 1 and unconcerned for Doe week”,13they were longer no available to truth is that in its grant haste to Doe l’s Doe, who finished her fourteenth application, week simply had no time pregnancy day the Court issued its delay review the record and see that a decision, already in her second days trimes- of a few to issue reasoned decision (2000) C.J., 1(I), 10. 19 S.W.3d (Phillips, (Tex.2000). 14. In re Doe 19 S.W.3d 249 Hecht, Owen, Abbott, JJ., dissenting). (2000). 15. 19 S.W.3d 278 11. Id. 4(I), (Tex.2000). In re Doe 19 S.W.3d 322

12. Ante at 354. 4(II), (Tex.2000). 13. Ante at 354. In re Doe 19 S.W.3d 337 Indeed, procedure had impair any way. bypass her in that the denied would not “an for an noted, opportunity effective abortion”. just Ias have Doe herself had requested seven-day postponement that Rule 4.3 of the The Court notes appeals the court the action of requires it to Parental Notification Rules —not pressed for time. Now that the someone possible”, rule “as as and that Doe’s soon delay issuing stated,” Court can see that appeal “specifically notice of mattered to Doe 1 “PLEASE EXPE- large, type: bold-faced new, any way, Actually, request concoct DITE.” is direct- must states, appeal ed the clerk: the notice of regrettably explanation for misleading, EX- CLERK: PLEASE “ATTENTION majori- its haste. That Justioes PEDITE”, prescribed by the standard truth, ty are willing shade even Doe’s notice form for such notices.24 first followed, procedures about the illustrates appeal to this Court bore the same outcomes, personal their investment days and took to inscription, the Court ten to the of law. adherence rule appeal The notices all the other rule. says that it was concerned Court parental notification cases this Court might “any delay that additional call into form, have been on identical and question proceedings whether were once, days taken to rule Court has fifteen sufficiently expeditious pass to constitu- occasions, days days on and six twelve two muster”,18 hard find tional but it is to case every on In other the Court another. much basis for such concern when opinion. its decision with an accompanied 25 delayed a total proceedings had herself fifteen In re Doe the Court took In eight days. cites v. Court Ohio rule, it left minor days though even Reproductive Akron Health19 Center week of beginning at the her thirteenth for Baird,20 v. neither case Bellotti but only a week pregnancy short for supports supposed the Court’s concern that and increased risk procedure different Bellotti, In expedition. Supreme trying claims to have been Court ex- expedition in this case. The Court cannot required Court “sufficient avoid why hurry it had this case but opportunity plain provide an effective for its time in obtained”,21 could take and Doe not abortion to be A opportunity questioned such even whether it prohibited that The Court notes Akron, to her. In the Su- was available “disclosing from or course of the substance preme process held that a that could Court deliberations”, to violate proceeds our then up twenty-days last unconstitm- asserting “any that that prohibition face, previous- and that it had tional on its 10th issued our March suggestion we procedure ly upheld bypass “that could majority order without consensus require days plus calendar sufficient 17 majority con- is incorrect merits because decisionmaking time for deliberation the or- necessary to issue sensus was 26 words, trial appellate at both the levels.”22 the Court states der.” In other had majority had until March 13 to just If the waited that a Court Court which is of agreed grant application, issued an at rule and had the issuance of time, course argument could be made obvious no serious 110 S.Ct. 2972. 497 U.S. 18. at 355. Ante 22. 502, 513, 23. Ante at 355. S.Ct. 111 19. 497 U.S. (1990). L.Ed.2d 405 4A, R. 3A Forms 24. Parental Notification 99 S.Ct. 443 U.S. 20. (1979). (Tex.2000). L.Ed.2d 797 26. Ante at 355. Id. order, majority ap had denied an but there was a con- the Water Commission Services, by Hunter Industrial plication sensus on the merits and basis for decision in the district court implication petitioned before the order issued. The and Hunter gave depositions to take the of nine anything approaching approval evi reasoned deliberation to this case before it Commission staff members to obtain false, granted Doe’s nor for use Hunter’s motion for re application is dence so, be given hearing could it have done the haste with due in two weeks. One week due, which the Court acted. If the can fore Hunter’s motion was the district recite ruling depositions the events that led to its and court ordered that the be tak gave that it days, demonstrate careful consider- en within three and the Commission ation to case immediately petitioned ap before reached a deci- the court of sion, so, then it should rather than peals do hide and then this Court for mandamus confidentiality day behind the of our delibera- the deadline for the relief. The before depositions tions. granted we the Commission’s emergency stay motion for an of the trial Finally, the Court cites five instances court’s order and requested Hunter when it has announced its judgment with- respond to the Commission’s mandamus out opinion. supports None action in its petition. reviewing After re Hunter’s present case. sponse, day on the before its motion for due, rehearing was we directed the trial first, Dietz,27 Republican Party v. though court to set aside its order. Even the trial temporary court had issued a practical granted as a matter we the Com injunction prohibiting Republican the Par- stay mission no more relief our af than ty of Texas from denying Log the Cabin forded, judgment we issued our without Republicans an exhibit booth at the two- opinion delay filing so as not to Hunter in day state convention which was to convene rehearing. its motion for No Justioe dis days six later. Party petition filed its Dietz, in sented. As whether we had for mandamus and emergen- motion for an not, granted or relief the case would have cy stay in this Court on the next business immediately been almost mooted. day injunction issued, after the and we argument later, heard oral days two the cites, In the third case the Court Daven- day before the began. convention It Garcia,31 port v. the district court had true, states, as the granted Court that “we enjoined participants discussing the from stay opinion with an pro- to follow that the case sought with outsiders. Petitioner Party vided the all the relief it was entitled mandamus, relief in by this Court and we to.”28 But we did briefing so after argument.32 heard oral than four More argument oral and without dissent. We later, opinions months before the Court’s opinion stay also issued an with the order completed, granted petitioner’s were we explaining our reasons and the basis for emergency stay motion for an of the dis- stay.29 the The Court does bother opinion.33 trict court’s order without We opinion. cite that grant- Whether we had expressly noted that other issues remained stay not, ed the or the case would have under consideration. The Court’s decision the day argument. been moot after oral was unanimous. Dietz,

The second case the In opinion Court cites is Texas Thus: we issued an There, one; Water Commission v. Dellana.30 ruling, preliminary with our albeit a (Tex.1997). (Tex.1992). 27. 940 S.W.2d 31. 834 S.W.2d 4 Ante, at 355. (cause 32. 35 Tex. Sup.Ct. J. 170 submitted Dec. 3, 1991). curiam). (Tex. 1996) (per 29. 924 S.W.2d 932 (Tex.1993) curiam). (Tex. 1992). (per 849 S.W.2d 808 33. 837 S.W.2d 73 many in present opinion legis- case we no an amicus on behalf of so issued brief all. In Davenport, Dietz we issued attempting to the Court in lators assist oral ruling only argument; after legislative history of a analyzing stat- present there In argument. case was no ute, yet Court dismisses amici as relief; did not final Davenport grant we than a being less third of the Members of here we did. In Dietz and Dellana Legislature. controversy would have mooted with- been “ The Court ‘courts ought If the to be anything, lators. Court judgment without even in elec- amici to grateful helping summarize inability explain tion The cases. Court’s legislative voluminous record. the its well-established hasty departure from procedures over the dissents of four Jus- in opinions While issuance of our this on its it is tices casts doubt assertion that pending, been the case has Court has ob- it has no merely following law and that reflecting tained materials hear- personal predilections in these cases. ings debates the Parental Notifica- and during Act session. Most

tion the last of II audiotapes, and the these materials are at its has had them transcribed own Court Bill states that 30’s The Court “Senate expense. Having ample opportunity had sponsor and have filed an amicus author all these and check the to review materials brief, joined by legislators....”37 other amici, the by provided citations us Court forty-seven representa- Nine senators citations; it simply not criticize in the I not recall does these joined tives brief. do with the conclusions disagrees case in which the Court received another 581, Shaner, (Tex. Taylor, 124 v. S.W.2d 582 v. S.W.2d 36. Davis 930 Painter 667 (Tex.1984); Rothstein, 1996); City v. Victo Coalson Council S.W.2d Birdv. 587 of 1980). ria, (Tex. (Tex. 1996). 610 S.W.2d Appeals, 795 v. First Correa Court of 37. Ante at 352. (Tex.1990); Meyer, v. 705 42, Brown S.W.2d (Tex.1990); State Demo 787 S.W.2d (Tex. 1994) Rains, 328-329 38. 903 Comm. 758 S.W.2d Executive v. cratic 227, J., (Hecht, 1988). dissenting). (Tex. concurring and “vast, vast, That, course, majority in quired is the Court’s vast drawn. may dis- prerogative, but while Court cases”.46 arguments, with these is not entitled agree contains legislative history That them. ignore amici like those to which the statements legislative cites to the record Court If the surprise. come as no point should eight nothing times. Three citations have Legislature really thought what the Court any dispute. to do with issue Of says virtually every it minor’s did—that five, says other that two show granted why application should be —then anticipation judi- that there was some that statute, why pass did it bother rare,39 applications bypass cial would be If process? did it so in the there agonize that applications and two show most thing may is one be said with certain- granted.40 Nebraska are cites Court ty concerning leg- notification supporter one of the who said in a statute islation, every participant “obtaining bypass floor debate that difficult, long, process and emotional going problem.”41 be a Based on that the thought signif- statute would

nothing than these of the snippets other record, contrary consequences. to the bill’s fiscal note icant This was not a bill anticipated that half the applications making part technical corrections to seven denied, would be the Court concludes that Code; of the Uniform Commercial “a number of statements bill’s au- major piece legislation was a that this thors, sponsors, sponsors compan- neutered. Court has legislation, amici, including ion of the some extremely It is unfair for the Court to strongly suggest did contemplate statutory single phrases by sup- strenuous bur- out and comments den for the minor.”42 if Even this were a porters sponsors legislation, as summation, certainly fair and it if apparent to embarrass them with incon- not— “a number of statements” the Court means sistencies, ignoring while the multitude of three, two of them about Nebraska —the support statements their view of the ignores simply contrary statements legislation. intent of the I cannot conceive example, record. For the amici today’s majority that most MembeRS note that Senator Bernsen referred to thorough ever disdain for show such cases for bypass procedure suitable expressions pur- will and exceptions”;43 Representative “small Deli- pose other context. do not know “certainly si said that it was that right” plausible what conclusion can be drawn judges grant only would have to bypasses majori- other than that the Justioes “in rare appropriate cases when it is not ty are determined to construe the Parental girl’s parents”;44 Representative tell the they personally Notification Act as believe Gray to bypass “excep- referred cases as it and not as the should construed tional”; Representative King stated that re- involvement would be intended. Hearings

39. Ante at 352. 44. on S.B. the House State Before Comm., R.S., Leg., tape A 76th side Affairs 19, 1999). (Apr. 40. Ante at 353. Hearings 41. Ante at 353. 45. S.B. 30 the House State Before Comm., R.S., Leg., tape B 76th side Affairs 19, 1999). (Apr. 42. Ante at 353. Hearings Hearings State on S.B. 30 the Senate Hu- on S.B. 30 the House Before Before Comm., R.S., Comm., R.S., Leg., tape Leg., tape B man Services 76th 76th side Affairs (Mar. 10, 1999). 1999). (Apr. at 4 contrary to cites evidence This Court III decision, but such evidence the trial court’s of this I described the circumstances course, is, to this irrelevant Court’s 1(I),47 in Doe my dissenting opinion case not whether there The issue is review. today’s Prior to to which I refer reader. remand, support grant of Doe’s to was evidence hearing on Doe returned Rather, spoke was. the issue application; Planned Parenthood there for about one-and- unlicensed counselor support evidence to whether there is is physician hours and with a one-half application. the trial court’s denial She also looked about fifteen minutes. was, the trial court’s deci- There and thus concerning and alter pamphlets abortion cannot affirmed. This Court sion must be only person it. The other she natives to merely application Doe’s because grant hearing was a talked with after the first judg- court on a disagrees with the trial pregnant counsels teacher at school who call, merely nor can it do so because ment hearing, Doe’s lengthy After a students. overwhelmingly was it thinks the evidence to the trial court attorney stated ruling. court’s This contrary to the trial sought approval which only ground on render, does, as it can reverse and that she “ma application her was supports the trial only if no evidence sufficiently well informed” ture and is, if no reason- ruling- court’s —that telling par her have an abortion without conclu- could have reached the person able denied her again ents. The trial court did. sion the trial court finding as follows: application, the trial supports The evidence prove by failed to Jane Doe has ruling court’s is this: that she preponderance of the evidence have an sufficiently well informed to inexpe- that she is First: Doe admitted to either of without notification rienced, abortion evi- age, for her even parents. she has been well her While should discuss her situation dence that she the risks attendant abor- apprised of Concerning her under- parents. with her childbirth, in- she has received tion and abortion, standing of the alternatives and has shown no adequate counseling, ques- in answer to as follows Doe testified the benefits and con- understanding, of attorney: tions alternatives to abor- sequences of the that the coun- Q You also indicated admits that she does tion. She talked to Planned Parenthood selor at child, keeping know the benefits of of abortion. you about the alternatives testimony that she presented she no say? she What did or understands has been counseled Well, pamphlets A I have several Thus, has not adoption. she benefits of there, also; me. You she talked to but given she demonstrated adoption, also parenthood, can choose to her alterna- thoughtful consideration there, and there is the abortion tives, keeping the including adoption and you can do agencies there are where issue, Additionally, and not in she child. one of Parenthood is Planned adoption. notifying sufficiently proved has not abortion if perform do the locations interest, or in her best is not up. if that comes And go, I do choose lead to parents her will notifying if you actu- happens effects of what abuse. child, parent- to have the ally decide Doe not find whether trial court did hood, child. af- appeals mature. The court ruling and stated firmed the trial court’s permitted

that it would issue Court, like, go to Q I for would 3.3(e)(2)(A) the Parental Notifi- Rule and essen- the three alternatives over Rules. cation J., (Hecht, dissenting). 1(I), S.W.3d at 266 47. Doe tially your for Doe’s show some under- Although describe answers alternatives, re- thought processes. standing they Let’s start with the of her also flect, keeping your freely acknowledged, alternative of child and as she she becoming inexperienced. a parent. young Well, A Okay. keep if I were to never had to make a Second: has very child I feel that it would be difficult approaching decision the seriousness of being for me very young age at a and having an She described her abortion. wanting my to further education. I significant help- most financial decision as go college. would like to to I don’t want vehicle, ing pay her to for her join to have to immediately a minimum intermittently, which she does and her job wage young because since I am so significant deciding most life decision as to and inexperienced that is what I would go college. to have do to I am support my to child. Third: Doe admitted that she had not I saying go college would like to “sought counseling anyone from that had a personally have career. And I would view that abortion either would not be like to be married and settled down good you emotionally, spiritually for I before have a child. I want to be physically.” hearing In the first Doe de- financially I respon- stable. want to be briefly scribed her discussions with three I enough. sible want to be older. And friends, friend, teenage boy and an why ready par- that’s I am not for the older relative.48 then she talked Since enthood factor. only with a teacher at school and a coun- about, Q Okay. then, Let’s talk selor at Planned No Parenthood. mature alternative, adoption carrying the child person any and well informed would make term, having the it giving up child and considering serious decision without adoption. for pros large and cons. There is a amount of Well, Okay. personally, A I feel if I abortion, against information both for and carry were to this child for nine months 1(1) while Court held Doe I grow emotionally that would attached from need obtain information give away this child. And to it source,49 specific a minor cannot be well family right another would not feel if informed information she has is Plus, me all after those nine months. I people who favor abortion. As the don’t if put know it would in a worse Supreme United has ob- States lifestyle give than what I could if it or served, unlikely “It that [a woman] seems the parents would for it and it care love adequate support will obtain counsel and So, actually just as their own. am attending physician from the at an abor- against adoption. am not for clinic, —I pregnant tion where abortions for place.”50 frequently minors take Q Okay. Let’s talk about the abor- here, tion your thought pro- alternative that her parents Fourth: Doe testified in choosing cess that alternative. strong against views abortion and Well, Okay. situation, A my I mean not want them of her she does to tell again, I feel abortion disapprove. is the best decision decision because would It help my me. me further The trial court could have found that her education, that I I unwillingness would like to do. to understand and consider mean, right that I to have an way opposition now is best views in her desire abortion, go through especially family, can this. the views of her J., Matheson, 398, 410, 1(I), (Hecht, 19 S.W.3d 50. H.L. v. 450 U.S. dissenting). (1981). S.Ct. 67 L.Ed.2d 388 1(I), 49. Doe 19 S.W.3d at 257. opposed that she well If their are to

showed was not hood. abortion, informed to make decision. to avoid enough the is reason ac- telling importantly, them. And most appeals’ The court of to which opinion, Court, give to the minors need not cording refers, briefly a tra- the Court undertakes rights much parents’ consideration to their of sufficiency ditional assessment of the lives, their own need for guide or their evidence, point the the of which is to see major, life- parental involvement in their any whether there is material evidence the changing decisions. The MembeRS decision, trial not to support the court's certainly their views Court are entitled to how much there is to the see evidence issues, all but views must contrary. The did a cred- these those appeals court of job expressed and set- in the reviewing yield itable the record to the will trial ting support out the fact plain evidence Parental Notification Act. The is decision, yet simply ig- court’s the Court protect that statute was enacted to opinion. nores its rights to themselves parents’ involve encourage their children’s decisions and sum, In there is the support evidence to involvement, discourage as well as to application. court’s denial Doe’s trial The pregnancy and abortion. teenage simply the trial court’s usurps This Court it only ignores purposes, not those Court fact-finding it would not authority, which what can defeat them. case, has done any ignores do in other on appellate limitations review. The Court actions, justification no of its and the

offers only apparent explanation complete is its reasonably deny- trial court acted disregard authority lower courts’ authority to have ing application Doe’s antagonism Legislature’s its parents. without telling abortion Act. purposes Parental Notification ruling This Court’s reversal IV Legislature’s purposes thwarts Act, parents’ Parental Notification violates why must ask the Court is so deter- One fundamental, to raise applica- rights constitutional grant bypass mined to children, handily, has acted au- why usurps tions so Court their the trial court’s haste, why facts, the Court has such such find thority to and trivializes rulings. for the disregard courts’ lower to have an I dissent. decision abortion. case, effort to the Court made no might appeals determine when the court of OWEN, dissenting. Justice expe- could issue an or whether it care review process. appellate does not than conduct an dite Court Rather sup- court of thinks. if appeals what the there was evidence to determine determination, this the lower port courts’ rulings, I The rationale for the Court’s of the trial usurped the role Court think, regard that the does not Court evidence, court, and drawn reweighed being to have an the decision abortion has for- conclusions. The Court its own gener- very important one. Minors should by princi- abiding semblance of saken allowed to make that decision ally be affirm review. I would ples appellate themselves, thinks, though even in this there is judgment case because to decide the law does allow them (1) Doe did not evidence that Jane some A tonsil- tonsillectomy. to have a whether alterna- adequate counseling about receive abortion, lectomy surgery; is serious given abortion and has tives to Also, thinks, not. the Court those alterna- thoughtful consideration to much know that minors need not believes (2) tives, matu- not have the they can does process than what more about rity proceed Parent- to make decision to out in a short to Planned find visit hasty rendition was remark- notifying an abortion without one of her The Court’s for a of reasons. I will parents. able number public to the subject most of those reasons But I dissent from far more than the that deserve out of abun- scrutiny ap- judgment particular rendered this might of caution that to do so violate dance I methods peal. strongly dissent from the I of recount the Code Judicial Conduct.1 by rendering employed the Court the actual only facts that do not disclose judgment. summarily The Court reversed or lack of discussions about discussions courts, opinion the lower without First, this case. not even an abbreviated considered, opportunity without for opinion, analysis, accompanied much less substantive deliberations. Now that ruling. explana- There was no Court’s has, fact, after the opinion, Court issued an grounds for the tion of substantive obliterated, it has with a pen, the stroke of ruling, explanation nor was there an fifty years regard- more than of precedent judgment need to render final without an ing appellate review of a trial court’s find- Republi- opinion or at least notation. Cfi ings. disturbing The Court’s actions raise Dietz, Party can v. 924 S.W.2d questions its commitment about to the rule (Tex.1996) (granting emergency relief in process of law to the fundamen- that is opinion hearing expe- an abbreviated after public’s judiciary. tal to the trust arguments opinion dited oral a final follow). Second, summarily reversed the lower courts and rendered This appeal is Doe’s second to this judgment March than forty- on less Court. appeal, On the first the Court did eight after it the record hours received any not find error in trial judg court’s p.m. about 8:00 on March 8. When it ren- denying ment her application or in the judgment, likely dered is it that the how appeals’ judgment court of affirming it a opinion Court had before draft of an However, denial. the Court remanded carefully analyzed evidence this matter to the trial court for further pages testimony from the second justice. consideration the interest of Third, every even mem- hearing? though Doe, See re Jane recognized expedi- ber of the Court (Jane ). 1(I) (Tex.2000) this, appeal, tion of Doe’s second es- was sential, Doe not so much hint that did remanded, After the was case the trial summary disposition immediate or was hearing court held a second again necessary any for a medical or other rea- application. denied the The court ap- appeal typed Doe’s son. notice peals again affirmed. transcript onto the standard form this Court has the trial court’s hearing second was re- promulgated for notification by this during evening ceived Court on cases, printed and that form includes “AT- Wednesday, parts March and other TENTION CLERK: PLEASE EXPE- the record were on Thursday, received Court, DITE” it. request March But Doe did not 9. The a vote of five to four, any par- fit the Court rule on or before judgment saw to render date, Friday, any case on ticular nor was there indication summarily March re- versing the decisions of the two lower that Doe would suffer adverse conse- quences courts. if the Court did not rule March provides part: 1. Canon 3 in relevant the court be revealed dences of and shall use, judge only through judgment, A shall not written disclose or a court’s duties, purpose public judicial unrelated to non- Supreme or in accordance with acquired information in a guidelines approved for a court histo- discussions, votes, capacity. positions ry project. taken, writings appellate judges 3(B)(11). Canon Conduct, Tex.Code Jud. personnel court about causes are confi- 378 beyond stage at already The and was well Why judgment? then the rush to suction cu aspiration which a vacuum or legitimately does not and cannot

Court rettage performed. wait until the follow- would be explain why it did not 13, judg- to its ing Monday, March issue in sup a court decision The Court cites accompanied by opinions. ment “[ejvidence that ad port of its statement that hearing at the indicated undisputed that on mitted The evidence is early 10, performing an day summarily ‘safest method’ for March Court abortion, curettage or vacuum judgment, preg- Doe suction rendered had been until aspiration procedure, is used fourteen weeks and that the fol- nant for pregnancy.” 19 fif- week of lowing day beginning was the of her fourteenth decision, Women’s at 354. That says The that Doe S.W.3d teenth week. Court Voinovich, Corp. v. undergo risky the less Medical might “be able Professional (6th 187, Cir.1997), which the if it on 130 F.3d curettage acted procedure” suction “ ‘[sjuction that curet says indicates say at 355. I must Court March 10. 19 S.W.3d performed up tage that this statement can sometimes strongest in the terms ” evidence, pregnancy,’ week of was in the has no basis whatsoever fifteenth court, any in the trial court or to the trial or mentioned argument of counsel appeals. 19 briefing in this or the court of briefing any of the three any of the in a court matter. at 354. And a statement that have considered this S.W.3d courts competent then, what, base its is not substitute does the Court On accepting But even medical evidence. assertions? value, it in Voinovich at face statement The “evidence” comes from .Planned curettage that suction is some says pamphlets that were offered to Parenthood fifteenth week. performed up times to the in deciding Doe reviewed show what had week beginning her fifteenth Doe was have an abortion. Even that “evidence” judgment. The the Court rendered when to act claims that it had belies the Court’s overemphasized that' cannot be point given to 10. The “fact sheet” by March in the record that there is no indication clinic by the Planned Parenthood Doe an abortion case that Doe could obtain vac counseling says that sought where she curettage vacuum by means of suction curettage is of aspiration uum or suction fourteenth week of during her aspiration “through Planned Parenthood by fered week, less her fifteenth pregnancy, much pregnancy.” Ac the 13th week of end of any from absolutely no indication testimony hearing, at the cording to Doe’s a decision on March 13 issuing source pregnan of her thirteenth week of the end Doe in placed 15 would have or even 14 or days before the cy was March seven Doe did not so much as any greater risk. Doe testified judgment. rendered greater be at risk hint that she would performed on Febru sonogram that a acted on or before March the Court unless that, on that that she was told ary 19 and Indeed, sought and obtained she had pregnancy was eleven day, stage of her ap court of continuance seven-day day. pamphlets The weeks and one to this Court. just coming peals before say that abor also quotes which the Court (14 offered the Court other reasons through trimester in the “second tions “we are that hasty its rendition explain ... are more com pregnancy) weeks additional also consider had to quite but are also procedures plicated whether the question call into says delay might “evidence” thus safe.” Court’s expeditious were proceedings day that March first muster,” pass constitutional conceivably have obtained abor could possi- “‘soon as must rule as judgment rendered tion after the Court ” procedure. rules of under our Doe was ble’ on March the close of business motivat- If those were the at 355. pregnancy week of already her fifteenth actions, many statements ing factors behind the Court’s how One of remarkable justify opinion attempting explain then does it its treatment of Court’s Jane (Tex.2000)? rendition in this case is its reversal and 19 S.W.3d trial court did not make a because the appeal languished Jane Doe 4’s in this specific finding that Doe had not shown days fifteen Court for before decision pre- maturity, empowered was announced in an of the Court. sume that Doe is mature. See 19 S.W.3d proceeding Jane Doe l’s in the Texas was more at 357-58. The Court thus overrules system thirty-one days court for from the fifty years precedent. than of day application, she filed her Jane Doe 4’s twenty-seven. for today, Until it had been well-settled law findings that a trial court makes of when Bluntly put, the Court has manufactured law, appellate fact of an and conclusions justify Equally reasons to its action. trou- presume sup court must that the evidence bling the lack process of accorded in this ports express findings “not ... issued, judgment pre- case. Once had any findings but also omitted which are sumably proceeded Doe had abor- un necessary support judgment,” knowledge tion without the or consultation judg less does support the record either of her parents, likely of how was it Smith, 420, ment. Wisdom v. 146 Tex. 209 that member of the Court who voted 164, (1948); Page v. S.W.2d 166-67 Central summarily reverse the appeals’ court of Co., 802, Bank Trust 548 804 & S.W.2d judgments and trial court’s and render 1977, writ); no (Tex.Civ.App. — Eastland judgment give for Doe would be inclined to Hayes, States Theatres v. 534 S.W.2d Gulf studied consideration to writings offered 406, 1976, 407 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont by dissenting likely members? How n.r.e.); Int'l, writ Big-Tex ref'd Go Inc. v. it that on of analy- consideration written (Tex. Co., 208, Crude Oil 531 S.W.2d 210 ses, any of the five members of the Court 1975, writ); Civ.App. no Ives v. — Eastland hastily who voted to judgment issue a (Tex.Civ. Watson, 930, 521 S.W.2d 934 change his or her mind and corre- 1975, n.r.e.); App. writ ref'd — Beaumont spondingly, his or her vote? Anglin, see also In re 930 S.W.2d writ); (Tex.Civ.App. no — Dallas II Herd, (Tex.Civ. re 537 S.W.2d n.r.e.); Doe contends that App. she has demonstrated writ ref'd Al — Amarillo Credits, as a matter of law one of three Bldg. Grogan lied Inc. v. Builders 33.003(i) grounds Co., under section the Supply 365 S.W.2d Family Code that would entitle (Tex.Civ.App.Houston 1963, her to writ ref'd — n.r.e.). proceed with an abortion notifying procedure long without Our rules of 33.003(i). parent. § It is that provided when a trial court finds one Tex. Fam.Code position recovery her that she is “mature and ground suffi- or more elements of a ciently defense, well to make the sup informed decision or omitted elements “will be performed plied to have an abortion without no- by presumption support of the tification to either of parents.” judgment” supported by Id. if the evidence The trial court was unpersuaded request findings regarding and ruled and no to make against appeals her. The court of affirmed the been made. omitted elements has judgment. Tex.R. Civ. P. 299.2 defense, provides entirety: covery 2. Rule 299 in its no element of which has fact; findings but been included findings When of fact are filed the trial one or more elements thereof have when judg- court shall the basis of form court, been found the trial omitted unre- grounds upon recovery ment all and of elements, quested supported by when evi- judgment defense embraced therein. The dence, presumption may supported upon appeal by supplied by will be not be presumed finding upon any ground judgment. support of re- Refusal of recognize given the short time trial courts directed 33.003, prescribed findings the make fact and conclusions periods by section 33.003(h). § law. See procedures proce set forth in rules of our Tex. Fam.Code trial court in this case did so. Under well- complement dure that Rule 299 conflict court precedent, reviewing established with section and that the detailed 33.003 judg- presume must the trial court’s process requesting findings additional only by supported ment this case is of fact and conclusions of law does not finding suffi- express its that Doe was not State, v. apply. generally See Johnstone informed, im- ciently by its well but also (Tex.2000) 408-10, (holding mature plied finding was not 329b, requiring Tex.R. Civ. P. a motion for enough to make to have the decision preserve sufficiency trial new factual parent. without notification of a abortion challenges, with Tex. conflicted Health & establishing had the burden both of 574.070, § Safety required a which Code ground proceeding elements of that fro appeal of of tempo notice an order from with abortion without notification. rary commitment health to a mental facili in that Nothing Family the Code indicates ty days). to be filed within ten But the to override the Legislature the intended applied fact that Rule 299 cannot be finding principle that an omitted appellate parental notification does not mean cases ground presumed one for will be on relief that the intended to override judgment. support re principles well-established common-law Nor did the Court’s deci understand appellate v. garding review. See Cates 1(I) disap in Jane Doe overrule or sion (Tex.1931) Clark, 33 S.W.2d prove foregoing of the decisions when of (citing “well-recognized rule law” make suggested that trial courts that, findings if the trial made of court has findings maturity or specific regarding sup fact and the record evidence credibility appellate to aid review. Jane ports pre the trial it is judgment, court’s 1(I), today’s But 19 S.W.3d at 257. that all in support sumed facts were found long-standing dispenses decision with that judgment); of the Nat’l. Ins. Lincoln Life law. Anderson, (Tex. 555, 559 Co. v. 71 S.W.2d 1934,), Civ.App. on other says finding regarding The Court that a — Waco modified (Tex. grounds, Tex. 80 S.W.2d 294 judg- maturity necessary was not to the App.1935) that if a tri (reasoning Comm’n See 19 The Court ment. S.W.3d at 357-58. find a fact expressly al court failed on the law. basis misunderstands One that support of then fact judgment, may grant a trial court authorization which rec may supported by proceed be inferred if minor to an abortion for a Thomas, ord); notifying v. a if she is ma- parent Central Tex. Ice Co. without is cf. Thus, (Tex. sufficiently informed. App. Comm’m ture and well that, to this holding approved) (holding necessary be are two elements there a review of supported ground Appellate cause the evidence the trial for relief. af that entitled to judgment, appeals’ of failure to find a minor was court the court the same as judgment ground did an abortion on this is firming trial court’s who party failure to for a appellate not violate the rule that an court other find particular presume proof the burden of on support cannot a fact a has relief, If a negligence. for judgment ground that the shows was not a such as record Holland, negli- fact); was no Henry Appeal Finch trial court found that there court Jury Presumption gence, example, appellate Error —Non but Trial — had been per 14 Tex. that se Findings, negligence to Omitted concluded L.Rev.518, (1936). law, conclu- as a 519-22 established matter requested finding to make shall be court P. Tex.R. Civ. appeal. reviewable on sion, alone, ready.” A reason- “when she was standing would not authorize abortion testimony trial able from this is appellate court to reverse the inference most her judgment. appellate parents paid court’s court after Doe’s education ex- presume living, transportation, must the trial court also will years, the next few she proximate penses failed to find cause even if there over truth, will be tell them the when there express finding were no on element This some plaintiffs consequences cause of action. If there fewer to face. enough mature negligence were evidence that the did not evidence that Doe is not her for her actions or proximately plaintiffs injury, accept responsibility cause the future. intends to continue to seek appellate required up- court would be She in vir- judgment support hold the trial court’s based on and take life, implied finding proximate tually aspects of no cause. all of her but not with Here, regard decision to have an abortion. since Court concludes that Doe to her reasonably trial find that established as matter law that she was The court could informed, to make the imply enough well it must Doe was not mature support judgment telling one of her finding abortion decision without prove, parents. which other element Doe must deter- maturity. Court must then if any support mine there is evidence to IY the trial court’s failure find that Doe to analysis Doe The Court’s of whether I turn

was mature. to the evidence sufficiently well informed is also incor- was maturity. record Doe’s regarding If the Court were to follow well- rect. law,

established it would consider evidence supports the trial court’s the record Ill disregard rather than that evi- judgment in high Doe is a senior school and still proof Doe the burden of dence. bears at parents provide lives home. Her for § In this case. 33.003. See Tex. Fam.Code substantially They recently all her needs. order for the Court to reverse and render purchased a new for her vehicle use now favor, it must examine the judgment her goes and when to in the fall. college she any if is evi- record to determine there Although earnings of Doe’s from a some the trial court’s failure supports dence that part-time job defray help to the cost of in- to find that Doe was well insurance, parents paying Doe’s are Co., formed. See Sterner v. Marathon Oil contemplates this vehicle. Doe also (Tex.1989). If 690 there is 767 S.W.2d parents pay college her will for her edu- support no the trial court’s evidence why cation. When asked she did not want finding, then failure to make an affirmative parents to tell either of her that she was whether, must determine still abortion, pregnant and intended to have an record, contrary “the on the entire based upset Doe testified that it would them a matter of proposition is established as they do because not “believe abortion.” Id. The evidence must be such law.” pregnant upset A desire not to her minor’s draw one con- reasonable minds can concluding as a parents is not basis for Navarro, v. clusion. See Collora law matter of that she is mature. See (Tex.1978). There must (Ind.1985). T.P., re N.E.2d raise a probative force to no evidence question. Although fact id. telling testimony But is that material See the more case, there some evidence parents Doe said that she feared that her this is close is reasonably from which a trial court could longer provide would no financial assis- sufficiently well if had an that Doe was not tance to her knew that she conclude intended informed to make the decision have abortion. She testified that she parent. notification of a day to tell them some that she had an abortion without she option for because [Doe] that the counsel- realistic There is some evidence emotionally attached to the grow to would Doe received about alternatives ing unwilling to and that Doe had after birth and would be inadequate child abortion This her alterna- 19 S.W.3d at 359. thoughtfully give up.” considered the child not testimony, received in- paraphrase Doe said that she had an accurate tives. keeping her adoption about that Doe did not consider formation but it reveals than a fami- help from three sources other her raise parents child her would whether member, un- teenage father her if de- ly it themselves she the child or raise child, teenage friends. and other carry baby born to term. Similar- cided to her (1) Those were an unlicensed counselor her abili- ly, expressed concern about where she intended to have the clinic for her ty provide support financial (2) abortion, given pamphlets that she was child, that she had did not indicate but she (3) clinic, at the her home economics her considered whether stu- parenting also teaches teacher who child if she decided support her and her than Doe. dents other it. explain did the substance of not relate information Doe did abortion counseling she received at the from her home economics she received abor- about her alternatives besides clinic to abortion. about alternatives teacher tion, say basically that “[w]e other than if her not know Doe said that she does pres- no making over sure there is

went decision, “but she supports teacher by anybody; making sure sure on me like if I feel this is feels [her teacher] have; every I mak- I am aware of decision problem. that it is not a thing best for me for me and this right that this is ing sure circumstances.” understands the She not, Doe did or was truly what want.” teacher under- not what Doe’s issue was to, explain able what she understood stands, Doe understands. but what adoption. involved in an She might be if her child were expressed concern and that Doe received pamphlets The would not be able placed adoption, for she clinic where times” from the read “several loving in a placed if it was to determine has now been presumably her abortion Doe was given adequate and care. home the exclusively on focus almost performed screening re- clearly uninformed about the complica- procedure potential and abortion placed in the home before a child is quired ade- provide did not pamphlets tions. The continued parents or the prospective par- or adoption about quate information placed. after the child is Simi- supervision no information about There was enting. understand- any she did not exhibit larly, during adop- the for the child safeguards adoption, though even ing open about adoption. The open or about process tion whom Planned Parenthood witness from that a section one statement Court’s talked to testified at had never met or is procedure” pamphlets “explains open adoption was an hearing impor- record. More borne out option. con- reading sparse information tantly, adoption pamphlets about tained says that the counselor The Court equivalent of child not the raising a is at the clinic “told Doe speak Doe did whom qualified from meaningful counseling keep if happen she decided what would as say, do This, pamphlets like source. While at 360. the child.” notes, about statements, information finds no the Court other of the Court’s skills, care, Moreover, parenting pregnancy it is in the record. support help pregnant of financial had sources testimony that she clear from Doe’s evi- is no there provided, could be or had not con- women counseled about not been provided was information kept dence that such if she options all her sidered not a to Doe. says “adoption was child. The Court plainly challenge the Court to state

Finally, the record indicates that Doe have any judge’s personal convictions counseling how not seek advice or from did strictly analyzing what is into entered thoroughly anyone was inclined to who That issue is in this case. legal issue explore with her the adverse emotional sup- evidence to whether there was some impact that an abortion psychological by a failure to find port the trial court’s affirmatively may have. Doe avoided that Doe of the evidence preponderance might counseling source who sufficiently well informed mature and seriously her to examine her deci- cause make a decision to have abortion meaningful way, notifying in a one sion It is notifying parents. one of her without may have caused her to do. of her irresponsibly who has acted question in this is not whether The case judg- by summarily rendering this case differently ruled this Court without careful consideration of ment when confronted with all the evidence that record, sup- by manufacturing reasons to trial The question court heard. actions, the evi- port ignoring its legally sup- whether sufficient evidence supports judg- the tidal court’s dence trial an- ports judgment. court’s ment. question yes. Long-

swer to this latter

standing principles appellate review judgment I dissent from the Court’s permit

our Texas Constitution do not this in which this case and from the manner Court to for that of judgment substitute its appeal has been resolved. trial ignore court and or to the evi- disregarded trampled the law and has dence, as it has done. of our process legitimacy on which depends. law y ABBOTT, dissenting. Justice says “judges’ personal The Court judgment I dissent from the Court’s may inspire inflammatory views and irre- opinion. separately I write to elaborate sponsible “highly- rhetoric” and that Noti- purpose the intended of the Parental charged nature abortion [of issues] does Act. fication judges impose not excuse who their own personal must convictions into what large degree, played To a the Court has strictly legal inquiry.” S.W.3d at 356. guessing game struggle apply in its judge To which judges or does the Court attempted It language the of the Act. has court, judge the refer? To of the trial who Legislature the meant to discern what in testify person saw and heard Doe dur- it used certain terms. As it turns when ing hearings the course of two and made out, guessed wrong has on cer- findings supported by that are the record? by That is made clear the two tain issues. justices the ap- To three on the court of legislative sponsors of the Act. Those two peals who reviewed the record and wrote a Shapiro Florence and sponsors, Senator Delisi, thoughtful opinion that cannot charac- Representative be Dianne White filed inflammatory containing terized that as as an amicus brief this cause forty-six irresponsible joined by eight rhetoric? To one or more of Senators brief, justices legis- In that the Representatives.1 on this the Court? Craddick, Christian, Clark, joined Tom John 1. The Senators who the amicus brief Ron Bivins; Driver, Edwards, Armbrister, Davis, Troy Mary Denny, Joe A1 include Ken Teel Ellis, Fraser, Harris, George, Goolsby, Haywood, Tony Rick Chris Tom Mike Dan Green, Kenn Hardcastle, Heflin, Jackson, Lucio, Talmadge Eddie and Drew Nixon. The Rick Howard, Hilderbran, Representatives joined Harvey Bob who the brief include Charlie Isett, Allen, Averitt, Berman, Hunter, Betty Hupp, Ray Kip Suzanna Gratia Carl H. Leo Chisum, Keel, Keffer, Brown, Brown, King, Kru- Wayne Terry Phil Mike Fred Warren Jim authority to act parents’ lan- natural clarify the intent behind the restore lators daugh- minor chief advisors to their Act and reference sever- guage used the and seek pregnant, ters who become ways departed the Court has al of abortions.... pro- the brief from that intent. Because meaningful insight appropri- into the of the Act is operative assumption vides The Act, I way interpret feel notice and parent ate that a will receive Nonetheless, from the brief at important quote responsibly. react there are hope being judges recognized who length Legislature —the pa- circumstances which apply exceptional the Act interpret must not in the minor’s by clarity provided rental notification is future will be aided While convinced legislators be- best interest. by sponsors. the Act’s rare, clarity. such cases are are by need for gin explaining the ad- require some means of important to They state:2 judicial bypass was dressing them. The Chapter this went provisions by Legislature. the means selected year. In January into effect on of this judi- procedure establishing In the Act has been the three months notification, cially bypassing parental effect, upon has been called this Court to exer- intended courts interpret bypass provi- function of assess- cise their traditional numerous times. Chapter sions the evidence before ing weighing month, issued the last this Court Within is to The evidence rendering judgment. by way of five in four cases rulings against long-standing weighed be with three separate opinions, sixteen experi- that minors lack presumption Amici are yet to be released. opinions ence, judgment critical perspective, and unaware of other Texas statute decisions, pre- and the making sound opinions in the generated nineteen in- sumption should it, construing there four cases first for their in medical decisions volved all this Court will reason to believe that children_ potential over- To avoid upon provide continue to be called advising who are reaching those regarding proper interpre- guidance showing require should girl, courts this Act. application tation and from a information that she has received interpreta- arriving at the varied sources, or that the informa- variety of numerous in the Court’s tions offered neutral, from a she has received is tion of this Court opinions, members Only reliable, and informed source. regarding legisla- upon relied inferences truly competent and the minor is when or- Amici tive intent. brief file informed, court is con- or when the well accu- in more der to assist minor’s best interest vinced that the purpose, intended rately discerning the to a allowing her to consent served application the Act. scope, [foot- abortion, autho- the court should secret omitted] except an of our children’s lives area M.D., Miller, Hearing before David Scott Currently, in Senate Bill abortion. Committee, 19, April House State Affairs sweeping intent keeping with the broad and 30, 6, 1999, Bill law.”)[;] tape (opposing B Senate side Representative of the whole of Texas parental in- Delisi, acknowledging requires that he Hearing before Dianne White 19, Committee, non-emergency pro- every April volvement in other House State Affairs cedure). 1999, 1, A[;] Representative tape Leo side committee, Bill 5 in ety’s recognition laying of minors’ lack of out House judgment understanding, example [footnote more detailed provided even strong presumption and the bypass granted omitted] of cases where should be running Texas law that mi- through all ten-year-old by discussing hypothetical nors benefit from the involvement of reading victim of incest.9 On second parents. their for Senate of Committee Substitute Bill House Representatives, of Legislators were unanimous in their Representative Gray offered a further as “rare” bypass characterization example bypass being appropriate or exceptional.6 of cases examples parent may pris- where be in cases “one involving judicial bypass given use of the on may another one [and] by legislators during committee hear- prob- streets with their own health ings young girls or floor debate involved Rep- floor lems”.10 the House debate facing dire circumstances. Senator example Giddings gave resentative Gallegos expressed repeated concern require agreed of a mother who had girls hospitalized who would be or about daughter to have sex with the moth- by parents die due to who became abuse third, new At the er’s husband.11 outraged daughter’s at the news of their 30, Repre- final Bill reading, Senate pregnancy.7 Members of the House continuing con- sentative Delisi voiced State Affairs Committee discussed use incest, physi- cern that victims of [sic] the context of the incest bypass Gray, protection, cal abuse receive and her Representative victim’s needs.8 Bernsen, Hearing Hearing 8. the House State Affairs 6. Senator David before the before 1999, 2, Committee, Committee, 19, tape April side A Senate Human Services March (discussion 10, 1999, 3, ("those Representatives excep- between John tape at 4 small Danburg, Longoria, Debra and Dianne bypass procedure); Rep- Amos for a tions" suitable Delisi, regarding bypass White Delisi the merits of Hearing be- resentative Dianne White protec- Committee, opportunity for the victim to seek April fore the House State Affairs 3, abuse), tape 19, 1999, 1, against continuing ("And tion tape you are cer- side A (discussion Representatives A between side tainly right, ap- in rare cases when it is not White Delisi re- David Counts and Dianne propriate girl’s parent, to tell the then the garding confidentiality victims for incest appropriate judge law is be- court of counties)[.] in rural duly uphold, they are cause sworn duly upheld interest sworn to the best [sic] child.”); Gray, Gray, Hearing Representative Representative be- Patricia 9. Patricia Committee, April Hearing before the State Affairs Com- State Affairs House fore the House mittee, 19, 1999, 3, (refer- 19, 1999, 3, April tape tape side B side B. ring only "exceptional” as those to cases process); Rep- through bypass be dealt with Gray, Representative CSSB 30— Patricia Hearing King, before the resentative Phil Legislative Intent. House Jour- Statement of 19, Committee, April State House Affairs nal, 21, 1999, Day, May 79th at 2753. See 3, 1999, tape (characterizing side B cases to Clark, Representative Ron House Debate also through bypass 21, 1999, 158, as "rare" and 30, be dealt with tape May on Senate Bill "vast, required involvement (”[T]here’s per- a fair number where side B vast, cases”). somewhere, majority vast prison haps the father is off in disappeared!.]”). and the mom’s Jr., Gallegos, Hearing before 7. Senator Mario Committee, Human Services Giddings, the Senate Representative House De- Helen 1, 10, 1999, ("I’d tape at 22 like to March Substitute Senate Bill bate on Committee 19, 1999, (statement you Shapiro] Ben Hos- tape take Taub May [Senator 147 side A and, know, infra). spent years pital you Represen- like I five reproduced See also in text there.”); Clark, tape (exploring opinion of at 14 Debate on Committee tative Ron House 21, 1999, tape physi- May that minors would be Bill Dr. Dave Kittrell Substitute Senate street”); example (giving "Look the cally injured or "thrown out on the B side abusive, Giddings' parent, in Ms. tape (exploring parent of Kae at 25 child, illegal selling we need a McLaughlin girls die will due to case is abortions). bypass.”). better.” Addi- and Texas deserve goal.12 belief that SB 30 advanced that in their tionally, ex- state brief: examples legislators Each of these involve [sic] presenting a traordinary circumstances is it legislative Nowhere [in record] minor present danger real that a and unquestion- must suggested that courts will harmed if grievously parent be a a ingly any testimony that minor accept pregnant. is learns she record, offers, The lawyer evokes. a Certainly nothing legis- there is in the instead, with references to the replete supports permitting lative a record importance parental value of in- bypass only on the untested state- based volvement, rarity omitted] [footnote ill, ment of a minor that her mother was support ju- of that would circumstances want she did not her father notified involvement, bypass [foot- dicial of that and, temper, although had a because he great note and the care and omitted] her, he he slapped did not “beat” had prior to expected judges consideration her on some occasion.13 Nor is there to obtain a authorizing any minor secret anything sug- in the record to abortion, omitted] [footnote gest a bypass contemplated Legislature expected ... trial only girl’s a case where the evidence is presented judges to hear the evidence mother, testimony that she could tell her minor, against strong by weigh it but mother would share the informa- her father, parental presumptions tion in Texas law that with her who an alcoholic proportion” things advantageous, and “takes out of minors involvement is my subsequently grave “take[s] out on make ill-equipped are and irre- short, Legislature mom.” con- decisions, and arrive at rea- versible templated stronger much evidence question soned on the conclusion notification not be her whether the minor has established may interest or that it lead minor’s best Requiring blindly case. trial courts emotional, physical, or sexual abuse (or assertion accept minor’s mere required than this Court has to date. leading lawyer in the form argument questions or even mere to the added). (Emphasis The preceding para- court) bypass pa- that she is entitled clearly the last graphs particularly two— — retitling the rental asser- notification unjustifiable demonstrate the Court’s de- [would tion “a case” prima facie parture Legislature’s intent. incorrect], omitted] [footnote With to the trial obli- regard court’s added). (Emphasis gation weigh and consider evi- including testimony— the minor’s dence— legislators also contend that has made clear that it is “sought pregnant to insure minors ob- Supreme Texas incorrect for the Court of tained advice from those whose inter- “on bypass base a the flimsiest girl.” In est is the interest of the best testimony,15 perhaps, or even support, they state: evidence, on absence of relevant the basis many Legislators attorney.16 descriptions minor’s heard of statements unplanned panic Legislature, This was not the intent of confusion 4, 322, Delisi, S.W.3d Representative [19 12. Dianne White CSSB 15. See In Jane Doe 323- re Legislative C.J.) (Tex.2000) Intent. House (Phillips, (characterizing 30—Statement 24] 22, 1999, Journal, May Day, 80th leading "monosyllabic answers to evidence as court-appointed lawyer). questions” girl's of a 278, 13. In S.W.3d [19 re Jane Doe J.). (Tex.2000)](Enoch, Cf. In S.W.3d [19 re Jane 14. In [19 re Jane (Tex.2000) (Gonzales, concurring). J. ] (Tex.2000) (Hecht, dissenting). J. ] pregnancy may pro- quirements, physicians provide cause.17 Witnesses who compelling misplaced vided stories of part general abortions as of their ob- trust self-interested advisors.18 practice stetrical described abortion legislation While no can eliminate the clinics as insensitive to the emotional minor, confusion of the or that all insure patients,20 prone needs of their to be- place counselors her interests above subject coming profit-motivated,21 and own, requirement their that mature mentality.”22 “the The Tex- cattle herd “sufficiently minors be well informed” as Parental Notification Act was intend- limits the minor’s reliance those upon ed, in from im- part, protect minors profit only who she decides to obtain if unduly pulsive decisions influenced an abortion. only response those who advocate one It go saying should without that a unplanned pregnancies response —that only minor who with consults her sexual being abortion. partner regarding options dealing pregnancy “sufficiently with the is not [B]y requiring ... the mature well informed.”19.... sufficiently minor be well-informed to advice, possible Another source of notification, forego [sic] may where self interest override con- intended courts to as- minor, cern for the are facilities which sure that the minor receive balanced and if profit only girl seeks abortion. complete information. order According to the Texas Department of legislative it is goal, impor- achieve this Health, majority the vast of induced required show tant that a minor be performed abortions are in abortion clinics, that she has either received many Unlike [footnote omitted] information a disinterested and reliable health- offices, private physician’s provid- these from provider care who is not involved in only offer option responding ers one advocacy abortion and does not stand to unplanned to an pregnancy —abortion. ongoing profit particular In an choice regarding federal lawsuit minor, changes licensing recent Texas re- or that she has received informa- 18. Dee Dee 17. Natalie man Services sexual assault Moore, physician, certainly want them to inform their they’re their reasons parents.”); they’re going to be embarrassed or have diffi- culty obtaining parental the Senate Human Services March before the Senate Human Services Commit- teens] nered, ate Human Services very tee, at Planned at Human Services away[.]”). 1999, tape at 17 March at 8 scared."); if struggle 10, 1999, M.D., ("By they [pregnant in crisis and (“The teenagers hope desperately Wolk, 10, 1999, Parenthood of 2 at 4-5 Margot Alonzo, Hearing are, Committee, Hearing before the Senate Hu- by high school Dave with a sense of at 2 at 18 Committee, enacting these Hearing Clarke, at 2 at 11 Kittrell, [M.D.,] Committee, (describing continuing I, people consent, teens] I see March Houston] (“[T]hey [pregnant before that it will personally, March Hearing before the Sen- teacher); Terry [as are in legislation, perceive ("I for whatever 10, 1999, a counselor Committee, being March also know 10, 1999, are distress, Hearing just go Senate before as a very, cor- we Women’s 20. Amici 19. Archer, that she was formed. Dr. sen) .... Memorandum minor's re summary (Owen, J.). (Gonzales, these ^[309] [and Justices] Gonzales, continued sexual abuse with the getting away are Jane Doe 3 that consultation Id. at 20 Id. at 16. Tad dooming young girls[.]”). (Hecht, Davis). boyfriend Civil No. applaud [19 [joined by Chief Justice] J. (court’s Med. Ctr. mature and J. joined by Phillips, testimony by Dr. Fred Han- Owen, Hecht, and Abbott in In some of these (Dec. joined by was insufficient to providing summary H-99-3639, 29, 1999) conclusion Abbott); N.W. Houston v. the abortions for young at 13 testimony C.J.); (Tex.2000)] Justice[] of Order perpetrator id. establish Phillips, well in- at girls (court’s id. at ^[319] hearings in- sources, one At the same committee multiple at least tion from Bill volving Senate expresses preference which that pro- bills committees heard other over abortion. childbirth consent for mi- posed requiring parental pro- do not ... Abortion facilities that nors, for informed consent adult and services, care or prenatal adoption vide sup- All of were women. these bills not the sole qualify would to. be [sic] by regarding post- testimony ported minor’s informa- source of a healthcare regret, complications [foot- abortion mi- proposed, the test tion. Under poignant most Among omitted] note obtaining such nor information from Linda testimony of Ms. Gart- was the required be to show that facility would Human the Texas Senate man before she has also obtained from information long-term Committee.24 Services expressed preference a source which harm testi- psychological emotional Examples childbirth over abortion. by Ms. Gartman and others coun- fied to are not lim- such sources include but of endorsing caution in abortion great sels centers, pi'egnancy prenat- to crisis ited every unplanned preg- solution as the to al that do abor- provide care clinics procedure nancy. surgical Because no tions, adoption agencies provide free, entirely risk and because medical services. abortion, [footnote character unique of of Legislature The intention heavy responsibil- courts omitted] bear to are suffi- insure mature minors patriae exercising parens their ity when ciently options well informed their of or ill- to an immature power authorize dealing unplanned pregnancy. with an minor to a secret informed to consent part achieving objective, As To that courts could suggest abortion. in- sponsors articulated their desire only inquir- authorize such action after those sure minors were advised should be ing parent as to whether a interest, free seeking the minor’s best is to that courts are free suggest notified By gain. the taint of personal from secretly in the natural and intervene trial establishing that insure standards relationship of constitutionally-protected relying ex- protect courts minors from child, the natural parent usurp pre- upon the those who clusively advice of make rogative parent medical gain stand to from minor’s choice of child, and then irres- decisions for their abortion, this Court the clear upholds immature minor to ponsibly abandon the Act, intent well with- remains has already decision court make a articulat- constitutional standards compe- unequipped she is determined Supreme ed United States required tently make. This result is Casey.23 in Planned Parenthood v. the Parental reading under a fair added). protesta- (Emphasis Despite its Act constitutional Notification or federal struggling apply tions about law, cannot an accurate under- intent, depart continues of this view of Texas standing Court’s clearly con- these articulated standards law. must be to en- cerning what established 2, this Court articu- In In re Jane Doe that the minor is well informed.

sure that a trial court lated four factors assessing a minor’s clear that trial should consider Legislature makes carefully impact notification would weigh courts must claim Yet, in her interest.25 as may a minor: best that an abortion have on not be 282] 25. In re Jane Doe [19 112 S.Ct. 120 L.Ed.2d 505 U.S. (1992). (Tex.2000). Gartman, Hearing the Senate Linda before Committee, tape 4-5. Human Services concurring Justice Owen notes there are cases where the abuse is not opinion, go none of these factors to the known. I don’t know many how question whether it is in the best you might be aware that there are two particular interest of this minor to ob- high-profile cases the Dallas area tain an every abortion.26 There was ex- year. the last One where a mother pectation by that Texas married young girl and the that was courts continue their traditional daughter, years old was forced solicitude for being the well of immature to enter into a contract to have a minors, and consider not whether daughter stepfather for her a part parental notification was in- in the best the marriage. Fortunately, of minor, terest of the but also whether the was discovered and that man is decision to obtain an abortion was in her prison and so is that mother. Addi- interest, best [footnote omitted]. tionally, we had a case where a moth- Norplant put er had a into the arm of legislators argue further “any her child so that the father could have bypass for upon abuse should be based sex with that child without fear of constituting evidence of conduct un- abuse pregnancy.28 der Family section 261.001 of the Texas contention, support Code.” In of that Her examples were referred to several argue that the: [sic] times and seems to be indicative of general understanding the type of of legislative discussion of abuse involved judi- circumstances that would result in extreme conduct which would constitute bypass cial of notification due abuse under 261.001of the Tex- [section] interpretation abuse.29 This Court’s Family as during Code. Statements what adequate would constitute evi- House Representatives debate re- sexual, potential dence “physical, or garding Senate Bill provide insight emotional justify abuse” legislative into understanding sufficient bypassing parental should justify bypass- circumstances that would notification gravity the situa- ing parental involvement in a minor’s informed during tions discussed decision to obtain an abortion. While process. there are multiple references to cases involving physical beatings, incest or legal landscape existing at the [footnote there is one di- omitted] time Act the Parental Notification bypassing parental rect reference in- passed establishes that the volvement on the basis “that notification as it intended abuse to be defined is sexual, may physical, lead to or emotion- Family section 261.001 of the Texas al In discussing abuse of minor.”27 Code. The Texas Parental Notification bill, a proposed Rep- amendment to the phrase “physi- Act did not introduce the Giddings resentative stated: cal, sexual, and emotional abuse” into provisions lawyers. know we have in this bill the lexicon of Texas This girls phrase statutory

for abused when abuse is had a well-defined sus- pected get help, or detected to but meaning section 261.001 of the Texas J., 21, 1999, 158, (Owen, concurring).] May tape (giving 26. [Seeid. at 285 side B abusive, example parent par- "Look the 33.003(i). 27. Tex. Fam.Code sec. ent, child, Giddings’ selling in Ms. case is judicial bypass.”); Representative we need a Representative Giddings, Helen House De- Wohlgemuth, Arlene House Debate on Senate bate on Committee Substitute Senate Bill 22, 1999, May tape (op- Bill side B 19, 1999, May tape 147 side A. posing clergy bypass inadequate because of Clark, E.g. Representative protection girls in Ms. Ron De- like the victims House Giddings examples). bate on Committee Substitute Senate Bill [sic] duty to re- physician’s Act regarding Family passage before the Sen- Code relatively repeated- port place Bill and had used ate been abuse. opinions.30 statutory inly appellate objective several Texas in the criteria found cases majority the vast of Texas While a child that results (“injury definition with the authorizing interference impair- and material an observable involve parent-child relationship claims growth, development, inment the child’s or physical of both emotional abuse and functioning”),35Justice psychological abuse, to be little appeared sexual there abuse; it is suggests Enoch “abuse uncertainty of what each of these three severity trifled with nor its neither to be The phrase claims meant.31 “emotional guessed.”36 fail Amici be second used additional abuse” had been without non- of this superiority understand internal reference in at definition or comparative over the defining definition dealing least three other statutes existing statutory defini- clarity of Code,32 Family minors well as Certainly tion of “emotional abuse.” in two statutes Human additional by- to decide attempting lower courts Resources Code.33 law, pass in accordance with the cases Nonetheless, in In re Jane Doe personal predilection, rather than find one, members of this Court offered statutory di- guidance more phrase but two new definitions of the ma- to consider “obsewable and rection Gonzales, “emotional abuse.” Justice mere impairment” than in the terial by Phillips, joined Chief Justice looked adjectives “unreasonable” and “serious” governing to the definition of abuse el- Gon- in the Justice found definition services, derly protective and offered a zales, provide any or in the to refusal definition of emotional as “unrea- abuse au- opinion definition found causing sonable conduct serious emo- by Enoch. thored Justice injury.”34 tional does not examples given through- of abuse definition, explain why this crafted as a in the context out the debate involving measure in- of misconduct law, Texas and the then-exiting adults, superior teraction of to Act defi- specific reference in the to the specifically to designed ap- definition be in section 261.000 of nitions contained plied the interaction of adults with Code, clear Family provide evidence minors. by- intent that the Legislature’s Enoch, joined by Justice Justices Bak- pass may “notification lead provision, er, Hankinson, O’Neill, provides abuse,” sexual, emotional physical, or guidance determining even less incorporate intended to the defini- abuse.” He parameters “emotional reject section To tions of 261.001. rejects the clear definition contained certainty relative of those definitions as inapplicable section 261.001 because amorphous interpretations favor of the the Parental Notification Act does not 33.003®, offered various members of specifically refer to in section of uncer- Court is introduce level although acknowledges he the use of Act into the Notification tainty in section 33.008 of the Parental section 261.001 White, 42.059(a), sec. E.g. v. 33. Tex. Hum. Res. [Code] 30. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. 40.069(c). (Tex.App.-Austin, pet.]); [no S.W.2d 474 State, (Tex. Rodriguez 1997 WL 527843 v. 1997), discretionary App.-Dallas, petition jane for [19 34. In re S.W.3d refused (1998). review (Tex.2000).] 31. Id. 261.001. Tex. Fam.Code sec. 32.004(a)(3), 32. Tex. Fam.Code sec. (Tex.2000).] 107.052(c), 162.005(c). [19 judi- disserves the seeking duties, minors reporting their specific with em- cial bypass, the trial required courts phasis on the ap- circumstances that rule on their applications, and the appel- peared to be most common from the late ultimately courts that will be called legislative testimony. There was sub- to review those trial rulings. court It stantial testimony concerning large was not the intention of the number pregnancies of minors’ resulting vague guidance uncertain its from sexual assault parties, unrelated on the criteria bypass, Similarly [footnote omitted] there were Amici urges the court to reconsider repeated expressions [sic] of concern to pro- the confusion created by searching for unique tect vulnerabilities of chil- incest, alternative definitions when the Texas dren who are the victims of [foot- Family already Code reasons, clear and note For omitted] these the Act functional definition of emotional abuse. specific contains provisions requiring the reporting of patterns these of conduct.

The clear definition of found in abuse The inclusion of these provisions does section 261.001 compliance facilitates change, nor was it intended to statutory reporting of abuse re- change, general reporting obli- quirements. The law of long Texas has gations professionals under section insisted on protection of minors 261.101 Family of the Texas To Code. against abuse. statutory Under current suggest otherwise is to abandon the protections any person having cause to most vulnerable society members of our believe that a minor has suffered harm harm, continuing degradation and as the result of report abuse must [footnote omitted] belief to appropriate state officials for investigation.37 The standard is even In order to compliance insure with the higher for professionals, licensed general reporting placed upon duties only must not report reasonable judges, lawyers, and professionals other abuse, past belief of but must also report judicial bypass involved case it is any reasonable belief of future important abuse.38 objective have clear and The state’s concern protec- to insure the definitions of the various forms of tion of children strong is so that it even Family “abuse.” Section 261.001 of the trumps the underlying interests provides testimo- Code such definitions. Without nial privileges, including that of clarity objectivity, attor- such and general ney-client. [footnote reporting requirement omitted] becomes an invi- engage tation to in witch hunts —an invi-

Expression of this concern is contin- tation integrity that undermines of ued in the Parental by Notification Act family truly and would harm minors reporting requirements its regarding abused, at risk of being due to the re- past both and future abuse.39 The rec- charged sources of state officials with ord is clear that the Texas protection becoming of minors over- protect intended to may minors be who whelmed questionable or even spe- endangered by revealing parent to a reports. cious pregnancy their or intent to obtain an abortion. The mechanism chosen for The Parental Act specifi- Notification protection was the pro- cally reminder to refers to the definitions of abuse fessionals involved in bypass cases of contained in section 261.001 of the Texas applying 37. Tex. Fam.Code bypass sec. 261.101. minor in for where abuse) appropriate due to evidence of and 38. Id. court, (duty Tex. Fam.Code sec. 33.009 of litem, guardian attorney ad and ad litem to (physi- 39. See Tex. sec. Fam[.] Code 33.008 report against sexual crimes committed duty report duty Department cian’s and minor). Regulatory and of Protective Services to assist Because White Delisi. ex- sentative Dianne record Family Code. The depart analysis and conclusions support pro- the Court’s presses unanimous Legislature, intent minors are the victims the true tection of who also unanimous expresses abuse. It dissent. in the

support parental for involvement majority pregnant

vast where a cases is at

minor seeks abortion. What

issue the circumstances defining is

where involvement should parental

occur, is on that and the statute clear rare

issue. It should not occur those 1) is ma- the minor

circumstances where ture well informed CONTINENTAL CASUALTY and COMPANY, make the decision to have an abortion INSURANCE 2) Petitioner, involvement, paren- without tal is in the interest notification best v. ill minor immature or informed is served ob- her best interest ASSO RESTORATION FUNCTIONAL 3) abortion, paren- taining where CIATES, Rehabilitation Productive may physical, tal sex- notification lead Ergonomics, of Dallas Institute ual, minor. or emotional abuse Compensation Texas Workers’ circumstances, two Certainly last Commission, Respondents. exercising parens the court where No. 98-0479. concern patriae power, paramount protection of being must the well Court of Texas. Supreme This clear minor. served [sic] definitions of abuse insures Argued Jan. protection of the

both the immediate April Decided minor, long-term intervention to as- safety. July continuing Rehearing sure her Section Overruled Family provides 261.001 Code this section should

such definitions and whereby standard the courts of potential state determine whether justifies bypassing

abuse exists which inten- of a minor’s notification

tion obtain abortion. added).

(Emphasis foregoing with the statements accord amici, I analysis legislative interpretive its

urge the Court abandon true simply apply

hand-wringing stat-

legislative eloquently intent that is so sponsors. Act’s If the Court’s

ed at- goal any judge goal

true —or to decide a Parental Notification

tempting apply

Act the Act consistent case—is intent, need its no than Amici brief

look further Curiae Repre- Shapiro Florence

of Senator notes constru- in a day or had acted so whether the Court statutory give ing language should little not; case, present there was no weight post-enactment statements indication that the minor’s circumstances ” my concurring and legislators,’ citing dis- In change any way. were all about Nationwide, H Inc. senting opinion C & cited, cases party requested three of the Thompson.38 v. am heartened here, ruling; In emergency no one did. my viewpoint, come Court has round to of these cases did Justioe dissent none if its motive is to contrive some rea- even procedure. ' ignore fifty-six legislators son to what cites,34 other cases the two they just passed in last think session. cite,35 it does were all three cases But on this the Court’s about-face issue of cases, and the most recent election two statutory provides no excuse construction years Lately, nearly ago. were ten legisla- ignoring the record cited cases, judg- election rather than issue a words, In if it is danger- tors. other even opinion, ment without an we have directed put post-enact- ous to too much stock printing delayed so ballots intended, statements ment about what can be completed.36 history to the legislative showing citations sum, present action in the Court’s during passage said and what was done case in election precedent except has no merely the bill cannot be be- discounted years old More re- cases ten and older. by legis- is provided cause the information issue cently, refused to

Notes

notes to an abortion minor to consent rize the added). (Emphasis parent. her being given to without notice argu- their legislators summarize abuse, involving allegations of In cases ment as follows: the real distinguish important it is Few minors hypothetical. the Notifi- In the Texas Parental passing or anticipate an indifferent should intended to Legislature Act the cation otherwise, Marchant, in Madden, all footnotes see, indicated 2. Unless Kenny Geanie Jerry included, Nixon, Morrison, Mowery, argument Oli- are legislative Joe Dora amici’s Anna the Palmer, Pitts, vo, Reyna, John Jim Elvira Smithee, Sue here. and have been renumbered Shields, Siebert, Sta- John Todd Bill Swinford, Taitón, Vicki ples, David Robert Truitt, West, Wohlgemuth. Buddy and Arlene trial chose for Legislature dard the parents their when pleased response determining wheth- apply in courts to preg- they unplanned first learn of her minor is “mature and er a testify Many honestly can nancy. girls of the preponderance well like “don’t having heard statements informed” — typically associated evidence—is you get preg- if bother to come home an conflicting evidence after weighing nant,” you you “I’ll kill if do that to Thus, we proceeding. adversarial hyperbole, the despite me.” Yet such an anomalous situation —the just the majority vast of mean minor Legislature directs if immediately opposite home —“come by preponderance must demonstrate trouble,” my you’re give in or “I’d own (which generally evidence you my child.” you life for because are not) that she likely more than means threats distinguish In order to realistic sufficiently well-in- mature overstatement, and un- from rhetorical formed, the minor is yet because ones, from uncomfortable safe situations evidence on only party presenting objective defini- courts need clear and elements, is no other evi- these there [of of abuse. Section 261.001 tions it to see against weigh which to dence exactly that and Family provides Code] likely than not.4 if it is more making courts in should be used expresses Enoch Essentially Justice decision whether to intervene difficult evidence weighing concern at this parent-child relationship by- parental notification presented in painful time the minor’s life. case, nothing trial has pass court legislators legisla- contend that “the the untested against in the balance place judicial bypass tive record establishes that who of the minor and those statements parental notification should support her decision. appear to granted in cases where a minor overcomes concern, however, proves un- This strong presumption paren- in favor of legislative founded after review by preponderance tal involvement intention of It was never the record. contention, support evidence.” of that “parte ex place state- argue: and other interested girl ments of the Enoch, in Justice his concurrence empty The tes- witnesses on scale. Doe,3 In re Jane following made the hearings timony presented at evidentiary regarding the observation legisla- and the recorded statements standard in the Parental Notification pro- make clear that the evidence tors Act: application support duced in proceed- notification is to be bypass parental Because of nature of then, legal dis- ing, carefully weighed against all the evidence in the rec- from soci- ability minority, resulting But the stan- undisputed. ord will be Alvarado, Jr., (Tex.2000).] Hearing House State before the [19 19, 1999, Committee, April tape side Affairs (expressing bypass under A concern [Id. 258.] to cases bill be limited involvement girl adequate evidence "If a where there is Hearing Shapiro, before 5. Senator Florence up’ 'My going to beat me even goes father is Committee, Human Services the Senate up probably her though he never beat 10, 1999, (“Members tape we at 18 March life, going that it is is that to determine every asking parental involvement in are father?”); one, tell her in her best interest to

Case Details

Case Name: In Re Doe

Court Name: Texas Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 22, 2000

Citation: 19 S.W.3d 346

Docket Number: 00-0224

Court Abbreviation: Tex.