*1 3.3(e)(2)(A) purposes the of the Act ion as Rule the permitted mention or how its appealed Notification Rules. Doe emerging further them. Parental decisions time, second and we re- in Texas will to this Court a truth is minors obtain p.m. the 7:00 parents without notice to their ceived record about abortions Now, to, forty-eight them than as the Court wants not March 2000. less often later, request by for has said should. hours without when consideration, without bene- expedited and appeals’ opinion, fit of court of this of the case adjudicates Court merits holds, explanation, no word of with wrong as a courts are both the lower law, entitled and that Doe is to matter of parents. telling her an abortion without action hasty From and ill-considered this 1. re Jane DOE dissent. No. 00-0224. Texas.
Supreme Court of 10, 2000.
March
ORDER of the
The Court reverses appeals renders judgment court of In re Jane DOE opinion(s) fol-
granting application, No. 00-0193. low. Supreme Court of Texas. Dissenting opinion by Justice HECHT March his to the issuance of an noting dissent opinion(s) with to follow. order PHILLIPS and
Chief Justice Justice to the note their dissent issuance OWEN PER CURIAM. opinion(s) of an order follow. Doe, minor, trial applied Jane con- her to authorizing an order for ABBOTT notes his dissent. Justice either notifying sent an abortion without HECHT, dissenting from the Justice her 33.003 pursuant to section opinions of an Order with issuance denied Code. The trial court follow. appeals court of her application, judgment. appli- affirmed The trial court denied Jane Doe’s Justice Chief Owen, Phillips, Hecht, authorization to have cation for Jus- Justice tice Abbot and telling parents, and the court Gonzales hold did not as a matter opinion. This that Doe establish appeals affirmed without mature of law that she reversed and remanded case make the decision well informed to In re hearing. a further either (Tex.2000). notification of an abortion without The trial court immediate- not establish parents, she did hearing again ly conducted second law as a issuing spe- matter application, more denied sexual, or emotional lead her physical, Court directed. findings as this cific hearing in affirmed, abuse. Because appeals court of Again the day business on the second court occurred indicating opin- that it would issue an time *2 301 after this Court issued its in In re an authorizing decision for order her to consent Doe, (Tex.2000) (Doe Jane an S.W.3d 249 abortion. Phillips 1), Chief and Justice Justice possible There are three bases on which Gonzales would vacate ap- the court of a trial could an grant applica such peals’ judgment and remand this matter to § tion. See The Tex. Fam.Code the trial court in the justice. interest of by Family court is directed Code Enoch, BakeR, Justice Justice Justice Han- by preponderance to determine a of the kinson, and Justice O’Neill would con- evidence: proved clude that Doe emotional abuse as whether the minor is mature and a matter of law. Although they would sufficiently well informed to make the Enoch,
render for Justice an performed decision to have BakeR, Hankinson, and Jus- Justiсe without notification par to either of her Phillips join tice O’Neill Chief managing ents or a conservator or and Justice Gonzales in setting aside the guardian, [2] whether notification would appeals’ judgment. court of minor, not be in the best interest of the court for further proceedings. of appeals and the trial court are set aside Accordingly, the judgments of the court this matter is remanded to the trial See Twy Id. the minor. physical, [3] whether notification sexual, or emotional may lead to application Doe’s to the trial court as- man v. Twyman, 622 n. serted that all grounds present, three were (Tex.1993) (reversing the ap court of except that did she not assert that notifica- peals’ judgment and granting the lesser tion may lead to her sexual abuse. relief majority when a of the Court did not 33.003(e) accordance with section of the agree rendition). on either remand or Code, the trial court an appointed proceedings in the trial court must be con attorney represent ap- Doe and also cluded as if application had been pointed guardian ad A hearing litem. filed the next day business after opin was held at which in response Doe testified ion issues. In the event requires that Doe questions attorney, from her her ad additional time after the issuance of this litem, attorney and the court. Her opinion prepare hearing, for a presented argu- ad litem also request an extension of time. See Tex. ments to the court. At the conclusion of 33.003(h). § Fam.Codе the hearing, the trial court find failed to that any of the three in section bases Justice GONZALES delivered 33.003(i) authorizing a minor to consent opinion concurring judgment, to an notifying parent abortion without joined, which Chief Justice PHILLIPS had proven preponderance been and in which joined Justice OWEN the evidence. The trial court rendered I Parts and II. judgment denying application,
the court appeals judg- affirmed that I issuing ment without an opinion. jus- One appeals tice the court of noted a dissent. unmarried, pregnant, and under age eighteen. provides Texas law appealed pursuant Doe has to this Court 33.004(f). physician may that a perform an abor- to section See Tex. Fam.Code 33.004(f). tion on an unemancipated minor unless the She contends that she conclu- physician gives forty-eight sively hours notice to established that she is mature and one of parents guardian, sufficiently well informed to make the deci- certain exceptions. See sion to notifying have an abortion without Tex. Fam.Code 33.002(a). Among exceptions those is one of her and that notification right apply minor to to a court may lead to her or emotional below, such can draw For reasons considered reasonable minds
abuse.
Navarro,
v.
one
See Collora
disagree.
conclusion.
(Tex.1978).
There must
no
to raise
probative
evidence of
force
II
question.
material fact
id.
See
*3
undertaking
Before
a review of the rec
case,
can-
Accordingly, in this
the Court
ord,
appropriate
a court
establish the
must
judgment
court of appeals’
reverse the
of
In Doe
this
standard
review.
Court
1,
support
unless
was no
to
there
evidence
that a
under
held
determination
(1)
failure
that Doe
the
court’s
to find
trial
33.003(i)
is
of
a minor
“mature
whether
informed,
sufficiently well
was mature and
sufficiently
informed to make the
and
well
(2)
Doe’s
notification of one of
performed
to
decision
have an abortion
to
or emo-
parents may
lead
her
par
without notification to either
her
must be
tional
The
also
abuse.
evidence
legal and factual suf
ents” is reviewed for
was
undisputed and conclusive that Doe
249,
19
ficiency. In re Jane
sufficiently
informed
mature and
well
(Tex.2000)(Doe 1); Tex. Fam.Code
251
may
her abuse.
that notification
lead to
33.003(i). A
court’s determination
trial
may lead
physi
of whether notification
to
Ill
pri
the
cal or emotional abuse of
minor
I
that she
first consider
contention
marily
finding
there
involves fact
informed
sufficiently
was mature and
well
“mature
fore similar
a determination of
abortion
decision to have an
make the
sufficiently
well informed.” See Doe
Doe 1
notifying
parents.
In
1,
Accordingly, a deter
establish that she has obtained information *4 concepts: tinent from a provider health-care about In Chapter: health risks associated with abortion (1) ‘abuse’ includes the following acts and that she understood those risks. Nor by person: or omissions was there evidence which established as a (A) mental or emotional injury to a matter of that law she understood the child that results in an observable risks associated with the particular stage impairment and material in the pregnancy. of the her growth, child’s development, psy- or Similarly, there was little evidence that chological functioning. Doe understood the alternatives to abor- 261.001(1)(A). § I disagree Tex. Fam.Code tion implications and their or that she had that section 261.001 was meant to define thoughtfully altеrnatives, considered her in all abuse senses the term is used including adoption and keeping the child. all, First of the statute Doe testified that she had discussed cer- clearly itself provides that it defines abuse things tain boyfriend, however, Chapter purposes, not broadly for she did not indicate that she understood Family the entire Chapter Code. 261 is requires that the law father to assist “Investigation Report entitled of of Child support financial Finally, of his child. Abuse Neglect,” duty or establishes testimony did not establish a mat- on professionals and others to report sus- ter of law that Doe was aware of the pected child abuse. See Tex. Fam.Code emotional psychological aspects of un- (1) § Secondly, only 261.101. subsection dergoing an abortion. From her testimo- states that abuse “includes” certain acts ny it appears that she talked with her omissions, that indicating even within boyfriend and with the appointed Chapter 261 the definitions of the word guardian but, ad litem there is no testimo- abuse in that used statute are not neces- ny that she was aware of the emotional sarily exclusive. psychological aspects of undergoing an abortion. While Doe adduced some evi- Section 261.001’s definition of “abuse” issue, dence on the she did not Chapter establish as Family mentioned 33 of the a matter Code, of law that she was mature and say that a physician who sufficiently well informed. has reason to subject believe the minor is sexual or abuse must it. report IV 33.008(a). See Tex. Chapter Fam.Code
Doe’s secоnd contention in this Court is 33 of the Code has its own section that she established as a of matter law of defined terms. If the in- of notification one of her of an tended the definition of in Chapter abuse impending may lead to her emo- to apply generally Chapter tional abuse. deciding specific Before easily could have said so in the definitions case, facts of this attempt we should to set out at section 33.001. ground
While I do not
that the
of this
would not
Legisla
believe
Proof
necessar-
ily require testimony
professional
Chapter
ture
from
intended
261 as
exclusive
abuse,
confirming
33.003(i),
emotional
and could
definition of abuse under section
of
solely
testimony
minor.
based
I take
from
definition
similar
But
there must be evidence
the record
statutes that emotional abuse contemplates
character
some
causing
unreasonable conduct
emo
serious
injury.
lead to serious emotional
Mere
See, e.g.,
injury.
tional
Tex. Hum. Res.Code
that the
would be
or
upset
evidence
minor
48.002(2)
“abuse” for the
(defining
chap
feelings
guilt
anxiety
have short term
or
Human
ter
Resources Code con
At
would not establish emotional abuse.
services). Also,
cerning elderly protective
extreme,
prior
physi-
the other
evidence
placement
the Legislature’s
of emotional
cal
emotional
which
abuse
home
alongside physical
abuse and sexual
severely
minor
de-
caused the
to become
contemplates
abuse in section
un
33.003®
self-destructive,
pressed
causally
party
conduct
a third
reasonable
notification,
linked
would almost certain-
causes
injury.
emotional
Some de
serious
ly
ground.
establish this
gree of familial
to be expected
discord is
an unwed
notifies
par
whenever
minor
V
ents or
pregnant.
turn to
now
the facts
this case.
question
deciding
hard
when the
*5
for waiver of
application
parental
Doe’s
reaction crosses the
from
in
line
form,
placed a
she
checkmark
teraction, guidance,
discipline
into con
my
ground
“Telling
parent(s),
on the
that
may
duct
lead to
emotional
that
serious
guardian
or
that I
managing conservator
injury.
to
or
may
physical
want an abortion
lead
Moreover,
may
whether conduct
cause'
hearing,
abuse of me.” At the
emotional
injury depends
serious emotional
to some Doe
not claim
testi-
physical
did
on the
involved.
measure
individuals
Con
had
parent
physically
fied
neither
that
duct
would be
in
that
extreme
hurtful
her.2 But
testified that her
abused
she
family
one
would not
in another. The
who,
than
is an alcoholic
rather
father
difficulty
ascertaining
severity
of the
his disapproval,
confront
children with
injury is
at
analogous
emotional
our
it
would take
out on
mother.
ansvyered
for
tempts to formulate a standard
mental
if the
affirmatively when asked
anguish
damages
as an element
in a civil
of
father has
with the mother.
been
Parkway
Woodruff,
v.
Co.
attorney
lawsuit.
901
not
attempt
ad litem did
Doe’s
(Tex.1995),
434,
get
S.W.2d
444
we noted the
to elaborate on what she meant
her
con-
parent’s
her
of her
disap
charаcterization
difficulty
distinguishing
between
incident,
duct or relate a
even
specific
pointment
disappointment,
and severe
be
guardian ad
Doe’s
broadest
terms.
pride,
tween embarrassment and wounded
her
litem asked
if she believed she would
Id. at 444
anger
between
indignation.
subject
be
had
emotional abuse
she
compensable
anguish
mental
(holding
,
parents,
tell her
and she answered affirma-
worry,
mere
requires proof of “more than
explain
The
not
tively.
did
embarrassment,
vexation,
anxiety,
an
emotional abuse meant
context
ground,
ger”). Likewise
this
courts
minor to
question
her
or ask the
elaborate
must,
example, distinguish
for
between
on
answer.
and cruel humiliation.
embarrassment
They
distinguish
court,
the minor who
must
the trial
In discussions with
merely
parental disappoint
attorney
wants to avoid
ad litem made clearer statements
severity
possible
who
disapproval
ment and
from
minor
about the
father’s
potential
effect
injury.
and its
emotional
is at
emotional
conduct
risk of serious
testimony
phrased.
supra,
n. 1.
Again,
para-
See
305 Doe, on attorney ground is not clear that the this as a matter of Establishing making representations requires was of fact or ar- law certainty, reasonable not guing interpretation for an degree specificity explicitness facts. event, In any attorney my opinion. was sworn Justice Enoch attributes to as a witness and her might statements are not While it tempting to lower the Garcia, evidence. See Banda v. disregarding findings 955 standards for fact (Tex.1997) (holding subject S.W.2d 272 due to the sensitive nature of the matter, attorneys justifiable unsworn statements of are not there is no basis for Gov’t, evidence); normally United States v. doing proceedings. Chapter so these Marks, (Tex.1997) proceedings S.W.2d are and confi- non-adversarial (holding argument dential, attorney attorney appointed and an may evidence but significance help present cer- the minor evidence circumstances). tain satisfy the standards we announced Doe (setting at 256 out the S.W.2d show- Doe, The scant direct evidence from ings necessary conclusively establish inferences, combined with reasonable the minor is mature might support finding be sufficient to on informed), well at 257 issue favor of if that were our (holding meaningful appellate review task. But the trial court failed to find the requires the trial specific court to make facts Doe’s favor on issues she had the findings abuse), potential about the prove. burden to Before we can overturn today. a fact finding against Doe and render judgment, we must be able to hold that VI conclusively established that notifica-
tion
hearing
application
lead to
on Doe’s
emotional abuse.
Here
facts,
Tuesday
the evidence
held the
following
Friday
fails to establish
vital
*6
law,
a matter of
which this
because the
Court issued its decision in Doe
evidence does
1.
conclusively
That decision dealt
show what Doe meant
with factors to be
when
considered in
mi-
determining
she said she would
whether a
suffer emotional
nor
2,
sufficiently
abuse. As we
is “mature and
instructed Doe
well in-
merely
parroting
formed to make the
terms from the
decision to have an
statute or lan-
guage from the
abortion” within the meaning
forms
of section
promulgated by this
Court is
I
judicial
judgment
not sufficient for
would vacate the
of
bypass
appeals
the court of
testimony regarding
and remand this case
the minor’s
2,
specific
to the trial
for
proceedings
circumstances. Doe
further
at
light
opinion
of that
and the opinions to-
Tex.R.App.
60.2(f)
day. See
P.
(providing
Doe failed
any
to adduce
evidence of her
this Court
“vacate the lower
response
emotional
to her father’s conduct
judgment and
court’s
remand the case for
aside from her description
response
of that
proceedings
light
further
of
changes
as emotional abuse. While that statement
law”);
the
notification Court, opinion. the trial given the Court has parties opportunity the an court and dissenting ABBOTT filed Justice of on issues of opinions this Court consider opinion. courts, impression. It will be the first Court, that consider the evi- not this will ENOCH, joined by Justice Justice judgment. on remand and reach dence HANKINSON, BAKER, Justice principled no importantly, More there is O’NEILL, concurring allowing in matters this nature basis dissenting. in a a court every minor who comes before proceeding opportunity the section 38.003 Legis- apparently agree We all their the benefit cases with present an unambiguously expressed intent lature by the 33.003 the construction in their encourage parental involvement the mi- except in this highest court state pregnan- child’s decision terminate 3. As noted nors Doe and Doe expressed protect intent to It also an cy.1 judi- parental in Doe devastating the lasting children from Family Code bypass provisions of the cial sexual, and consequences physical, emo- no other unique and There is are novel. disagree my abuse. tional Where from which procedure jurisprudence our is in that when the Colleagues my view clients draw attorneys their could made for abuse potential require- proceeding’s notice of the fair notification, it bal- exception rule will time this ments. Within short consider- respective policy these anced with the comply the failure to not excuse That balance is reflected ations.2 in Doe 1 and Doe announced standards notice that when Legislature’s decision Therefore, trial court a remand to the “may minor’s ... to the lead ” Rule.60.2(f) is appropriate. under abuse,” notice “shall emotional waived.3 that Doe should Owen contends remand, con- receive benefit of spe family This case involves violence— attempt to dem- cluding that Doe did not If this were a cifically, spousal abuse. mature onstrate that she was credibility minor case where decision to informed make the and well issue, I understand perhaps could were proof relat- an abortion. While obtain *7 of conclude the reluctance the in Doe showings required three ing the as had been met exception that the abuse abbreviated, record it is clear from the 1 is perhaps in I could matter of law this case. application without presented that she my of Col position the also understand instruction. opinion’s of that benefit the trial would the court’s leagues who affirm I the Court’s concur with Accordingly, credibility of the the outright. But denial appeals’ court of to set aside the judgment court be in trial minor isn’t issue—the the matter to and remand this simply minor. The trial lieved the further proceedings. court for that, balance, the abuse on determined tell worse minor didn’t the would and concurring ENOCH filed Justice can I no stretch Because under parents. dissenting opinion, in Justice which court to allowing the trial read the law BAKER, HANKINSON, Justice severity the the of abus relative consider joined. O’NEILL Justice judg es, reverse lower courts’ I would the application. minor’s dissenting grant ments and the HECHT filed a Justice circum Therefore, the I dissent. Under opinion. added). 33.003(i)(emphasis § Fam.Code 3. Tex. Tex. Fam.Code 33.002. 1. See 2. See Tex. Fam.Code overreacted, case, intoxicated, vot and taken gotten
stances of this
with six Justices
judgments,
only
the
her mother
ing
anger
aside
over the children out on
set
voting
judgment,
to render
four Justices
with her mother.
physical”
“become
v.
Twyman
Twyman4 dictates that
the
But
and Jus-
Hecht,
Owen,
Justice
Justice
compels my
matter be remanded and
con
begin by questioning
tice
Gonzales
judgment.
currence
by “physical.”9 Justice
the minor meant
require proof
Gonzales would also
of “seri-
fully
I
embrace that
minor’s inter-
“[a]
injury”10
top
ous emotional
on
of the evi-
ests in these circumstances are not
case,
be-
immediate;
already
apparently
dence
profound
long-
are
that would be extreme
“[c]onduet
term.”
I know that “a minor’s conceal-
cause
parents of
profound
family
ment from her
so
hurtful
in one
would not
decision,
itself, may have
like the decision
another.”11 Justice Hecht
and Justice
unforeseen,
lifelong,
consequences.”6
go
require
further and
Doe to
Owen would
I, too,
“fun-
And
believe that
equated
demonstrate
the abuse
damental,
rights
constitutional
raise
physical and sexual abuse and resulted
provide
their children”7 and “to
children
impairment
growth,
“material
the child’s
guidance
making
difficult decisions.”8 development,
psychological
or
function-
Legislature,
recognize
Like
also
ing.”
all three
her to
require
And
devastating consequences
severe and
of
specific instances of
Addi-
describe
abuse.
sexual,
physical,
or emotional abuse. Un-
tionally,
that Doe
Justice Hecht demands
Court,
like other Members of this
I think
occur,
detail “when
could
or
[the abuse]
inappropriate
usurp
it is
for this Court to
issues,
was,
over what
or how severe it
or
Legislative
by reconsidering
function
(Members
how it affected her mother.”13
weight given by
Legisla-
the relative
of this Court will no doubt reveal these
ture
policy
to these
considerations and
irrespective
details
admonitions that
placing
then
the Court’s thumb on the
confidential.14)
remain
This
record should
scale.
parsing among types
degrees
sort
Furthermore, under the current statuto-
anywhere
not indicated
abuse is
scheme,
ry
highly
inap-
it is
unrealistic and
statute.
propriate for
courts to differentiate
conclusion,
To reach their
among
perceived degrees
types
Owen,
Hecht,
abuse that
occur or to consider
Justice Gon
less,
Chapter
all rely,
more or
anyway
whether the abuse would occur
so
zales
Family
Chapter
261 of the Texas
more
Code.
one
instance doesn’t matter.
abuse;
is entitled “Inves
Abuse is
261 of the
Code
is neither to be trifled
Report
Abuse
severity
guessed.
tigation
with nor its
to be second
of Child
or Ne
unequivocally
glect.”
persons
that her
It mandates that certain
tеstified
father
alcoholic,
past
report suspected
neglect
speci
he has
abuse or
*8
(Tex. 1993).
4.
309
majority
that a
Apparently,
hap-
THE
should
now be obvious
COURT:
ideologi-
are
of the MembeRS of this Court
pens, right?
things trigger
So other
any
require-
cally
meaningful
to
opposed
off, right?
parents
that a minor tell her
before
ment
DOE: Yes.”19
they
taken
she has an abortion. So
have
light
Legislature’s
the
pronounce-
prescribed by
the Parental
standards
may
to ...
ment that
“notification
lead
bypassing
Notification Act for
notice
emotional abuse of the minor”20 the trial
parents of a minor child’sintent
have
authorizing
court “shall enter an order
low
abortion1 and set those standards so
performance
minor to consent to
purposes,
that the Act cannot achieve its
to either of
protect parents’ rights
which are to
to be
parents,”21
can this
how
not
in
lives and en-
involved
their children’s
enough? Sеtting aside for the moment
involvement,
courage that
discour-
that the minor confirmed in her own words
age teenage pregnancy and abortion. And
statement,
attorney’s
truth
it is
factual
have accorded trial courts’
enough
say
the attorney’s
not
denying
applica-
determinations in
minors’
words
are
evidence.22 Even respect, assuming
almost no
tions
attorney’s
has written that
Hecht
authority
to decide whether
themselves
“special
significance.”23
words
proof.
a minor
her burden of
To
has met
The
has balanced the admit-
judicial
in-
legislative
substitute
intent for
tedly strong
having
societal
interest
tent,
Supreme
findings for trial
parents guide the decisions of their chil-
judicial
findings,
court
activism.
equally
with the
strong
dren
societal inter-
opinions
that have issued
various
est
a
prohibiting child abuse.
It
denying these
are laden with rhetoric
usurpation of that action
for this Court
charges,
speak
the Court’s actions
interject
by reweigh-
itself
that process
ago
Two
in In
louder than words.
weeks
interests,
ing
essentially holding
these
1(1),2
re Doe
the Court reversed the trial
regardless of the
language used
application,
court’s denial of the minor’s
statute,
should
be tolerated
found no
though
even
the Court
error
parental
rights
just
name of
too
—
re
ruling.
the trial court’s
The Court
respectfully
much. I
dissent.
justice”
“in the
manded the case
interest
opportunity
to allow the minor
second
HECHT, dissenting.
prove her case.3 When the
After
applica
decisions from this Court in four
remand
denied the minor’s
again
weeks,
again
af
appeals
nоtification cases
two
tion and the court of
added).
(emphasis
managing
guardian,
19.
emotional matters consists testimony on all these Jane Doe,17, court applied to the trial following entirely of her answers to the for authorization to have an abortion with questions by guardian: two asked her telling parents, permitted by out her as you Q section 33.003 of Texas Code. talked and have indi- We’ve application8 you She filed a standard form to me that understand the cated following right? with check marks beside the is that process; abortion three assertions: Yes, A ma’am. enough I am mature to to have decide Q you telling is What are the court telling an my par- abortion without you ready are not to have a child ents) enough .... I know also about point; and a mother at this is become abortion to make this decision. that true? my parent(s) ... that I an Telling want Yes, A ma’am. my is not in best abortion interest. Doe’s then stated: guardian my Telling parent(s) ... that I want an Honor, further, I have Your nothing lead to or emo- only you to tell that I have talked to her tional abuse of me. and I she is I believe believe informed. assertions, Each of if proved by these that it is her best interest to waive evidence,
preponderance of the is a statu- at this time tory granting basis for application.9 that she be allowed to have the abortion. appointed attorney The trial court an to attorney Doe’s added: represent appointed attorney another boy We have discussed it also with her litem, guardian to act as her cоn- ad friend unable who also school hearing ducted a attended with They to a child.... have support Doe, all required by as law.10 Doe was length.... [T]hey at feel talked it over at hearing, witness and her testi- up in a home it’s—the child would end brief, mony very consisting much itof going that —is be conducive to “yes” answers simple questions put child in good, healthy the future. attorney, her her guardian, her and the court. attorney did attorney’s assuming Even testify but engaged in extensive collo- guardian’s were evidence for statements quy with the court. they may the trial consider—and summary well not have state- been—these high Doe testified that she is a school “yes” ments and Doe’s answers to two school, junior “doing pretty good” in questions plainly are insufficient to show engaged typical she is extracurricular that Doe was “mature or well activities, planning go and that she is informed” to obtain an abortion without college. pregnant. She is six weeks’ She no MembeR notifying parents, taking pills had been birth control this Court thinks otherwise. “skipped”. junior The father also a school, high seeing whom Doe been has issue, I say, But this was not the months. several She has discussed her Rather, hearing. hearing focus of the him, agreed situation and they why did not want to tell her dwelt an get she should abortion. parents that she wanted to have an abor- tion. testified: hearing The focus of the was not wheth- Now, Q you not why er Doe was well informed of the risks of want abortion, alternatives, your parents? and the risk of tell 33.003(e)-(g). Id. Form 2A. Rules, Parental Notification 9. Tex. Fam.Code really my attornеy A Because dad. court that Doe my Well, told the — probably
He’s alcoholic and a lot of times he would tell her mother at some *12 reacts, not, point required doesn’t react —He but he takes she to or whether was things out of He takes it Doe did not that statement. proportion. contradict my questions mom court by out on instead of us. Doe then answered as follows: Q Has be with physical ever become mean, I think —I it Q you do think your mom? your be easier to mother after would tell A Yes. you procedure? had A I think so.
Q you your Do believe that mother to share with going this information Q you You if are forced believe that your dad? your parents you to tell that would be abuse; subjected that Yes, emotional A that keep she will. won’t She correct? him. from Q your physically Has dad ever
A Yes. you? abused guardian is not Doe’s summarized: “she Me, no. A case. sure what her father will do in this Q Okay. fine, If he’s sober he’s if he’s intoxicat- A at home problems It’s more like no idea.” ed she has having to do me.... He with like in a engaged The trial court then just take it will find a reason to take — try her con- discussion to to understand my out on mom. telling parents. cerns about her Doe ex- Q you going Don’t think to be he’s plained that she she could tell her knew upset more he finds out that even when mother, although it hurt her mother would knowledge? this occurred without his to know. Asked if her mother would be A I I don’t guess. know. told, if an- hurt more she were From the court’s discussions extended “Yeah, swered, explained guess.” Doe attorney guardian Doe’s it is mother, if told mother she her her that all would apparent believed that Doe father, would tell her and then her father tell her mother about her decision to it might become intoxicated and take out abortion, either after the before or on her mother. closest Doe came The performed, that her mother her stating physically father had father, her that her would then tell following her abused mother was her might anger father react toward exchange: mother, although he not. As Doe’s might [By the rea- attorney]: One of told is not sure the court: “[Doe] that, having here sons she’s to avoid If father will in this case. what her do to witness it’s fault that her mother her fine, he’s but if he’s intoxicated he’s sober by her father physically becomes abused expressed has no idea.” The court something in a drunken rage because response whether the father’s doubt got that she into. so, abusive, it would be whether hap- THE Apparently, COURT: by attempting avoided or exacerbated trigger right? things So other pens, from keep the matter him. off, right? hearing At the conclusion DOE: Yes. deny ap- that would court stated findings The its any specific plication. did instance issued not mention Form 2D as reac- on standard how her father’s and conclusions or describe severe 2.5(a) Parental by Rule permitted might tion be. I am holding Notification Rules. The court made no accede to the Court’s findings concerning whether Doe was ma- bound to do. ture or well informed to have Now that the Court has held Rule an abortion without telling parents, 60.2(f) can to order a new trial be used telling
whethеr them would not be law, changes question fight might best interest or lead to should he hearing here is whether a new appealed, emotional abuse. Doe and the ordered in this case as in Doe 2. appeals court of affirmed a divided arguable change in the law since the trial vote. *13 1, case was in Doe where court heard says the it clarified Court II 33.003(i) by Code means No Member this Court thinks that sufficiently “mature and well informed”. Doe came to proving by preponder- close (Doe argu does not make a “best interest” ance of the evidence that she is “mature here.) I ex Again, ment for reasons informed”, sufficiently and well the within 2,14 in Doe that Doe plained agree I do not statute, meaning of the to have an abortion 1 law, certainly in I change was a the and telling parents. Doe does not do that it warrant agree change was argue even her second assertion in her 1 Doe 2. But Doe ing hearing in a new it in application, that is not inter- best 2, the decision Doe in given pres even the parents, apart est to tell her from her 1 ent case is different. The minors Doe in argument. emotional abuse Yet Justice and Doe 2 both tried to show that Phillips and Chief Gonzales Justice sufficiently were mature and well informed would nevertheless remand the case the notifying to have an abortion without their try again court so that Doe can on parents, proof but their fell short of the This, they both in say, these issues. the Court’s standards. One can make the ar justice by interest of and authorized the I it— gument though agree do not Appellate Rules of Procedure pre- and — they may surprised that have been to learn cedent of I agree this Court. do not that a 1 Doe in more evidence should have on remand these issues is either autho- present been offered. The minor in the rized or in justice. the interest of case, hand, on the other made no real was attempt prove she mature A the sufficiently well informed as minors in Doe 2 the Court held11 days ago Two and Doe 2 did. Her evidence con that it can vacate a court of appeals’ judg- “yes” to two entirely sisted answers ment and order new trial on the authori- questions, asking one she brief whether 60.2(f), ty of Rule which permits Court process,” “understand^] to “vacate the lower court’s asking telling the other whether she was proceedings remand the case for further ready the court that was “not to have a fight changes in the law.”12 The child and become a mother”. No reason peculiar reasoning Court’s al- person thought able could have that such though the rule had never been used to testimony by a proof pre would constitute trial, order a new it preclude neither did use, ponderance of the evidence within the right. so therefore it was all 33.003(i), words, meaning of section and thus have anything other the Court can do Doe 1 prohibited been to learn doing. surprised is not from I did not from agree, if expressed,13 necessary. hearings for reasons that but I more is Even new 2, (Tex. (Hecht, J., 11. In re Doe S.W.3d at 285 13. dissent- ing) 2000). Tex.R.App. 60.2(f). P. Id. Indeed, “mature and well in Doe 1 cites other states’ law feet. If construing were in Doe 1 in the Texas statute.18 appropriate formed” issue laws hearing pro- a new on that issue did not think other states’ construing the guidance should not be ordered in this case. vided Texas statute, why- did state it cite other court repeatedly that “an error- We held Even other states’ laws were cases? judgment of a trial court cannot be less wholly ignored, say, as Gon- or to justice reversed interest of Phillips zales and Chief do that losing permit party to have another juris- procedure is no other our “[t]here Calvert, trial.”15 Former Chief Justice attorneys from prudence which history surveying the of Texas law on this clients could fair notice of the their draw subject published in a law review article plainly proceeding’s requirements” “Attorneys fre- explained bluntly: wrong. The “best interest of child” quently interpret [the cases] rules and law is well known Texas standard supreme to reverse authorizing daily of cases applied hundreds across judgments trial court in the interest of are accustomed to as- State. Courts *14 justice. Not so.”16 He added that “to sessing maturity of children numer- endow the court with unbridled discretion contexts, family law ous such as matters change judg- to aside or court set lower juvenile prosecutions. Physical, and sexu- ... surely at will not be ments would al, routinely report- and emotional lawyers, to it is doubtful acceptable and ed, investigated, prosecuted. and Whether it would even be welcomed subject is well on a person a informed justiсes.”17 In court’s most circumstances unique question. a not Justice Gonzales Chief Justice Calvert’s observation Phillips act as if the and Chief true, anticipate he did not ring but Legislature concepts created the matu- it current Justices’ determination to see to interest, for the rity, best and abuse first applications that minors’ for abortions in the Parental Notification Act. time parental notification not be denied. Nothing could be from the truth. further repeated in the inter- The Court’s remands justified A remand cannot because the cases justice parental est of notification changes lawyers and Act so the law justified change cannot be because of a unfairly caught their clients were off- hardly It should come as a sur- the law. guard. prise attorney to a minor or that she showing simply procedural make some minimal before There is no vehicle must in this case paren- for the Court’s remands she can obtain abortion without notification, judicial predecessors, other than tal and that is all its two fiat. required. has Justice Gonzales Chief B
Phillips
say
parental
that “the
jus-
provisions
the Fami-
Nor is a remand
the interest
judicial bypass
said,
only significant
This is
As I have
ly
unique
are
and novel.”
tice.
Code
Many
1 and
2 was
pronouncement
not so.
other states
simply
Act
consent stat-
that the Parental Notification
means
had
notification and
nothing.
almost
The state of
law is
for decades. The Texas statute
utes
in ef-
much
it was before the
long
other
laws
not
different than
modeled on
states’
14,
State,
Calvert,
(Tex.
supra
at 291.
v.
99
note
15. Uselton
Liebman,
1973);
Scott v.
accord
1966)
cases).
(Tex.
(citing
re Doe
Act was now minor must to “her mother to court should not have witness going take trouble by her father in Doe [being] physically abused reciting enough things satisfy to and the court asked Doe 2. rage” a drunken injustices of the Court’s re- things happens” whether “that or “other procedure unjust mand are several. It is off,” trigger simply answered to this bounce a minor from Court to the told “yes”. But Doe’s trial court and back when can- this Court that Doe was “not sure what her father agree pre- what she must show will do in case.” not describe Doe did deeply vail. The Court is fractured on single even a instance of her father’s con- unjust prove. what Doe must It is to the occur, duct to show when it could or over trial court to force of an reconsideration issues, was, or how or how severe explaining issue without the error in its mother, severely it it affected her or how ruling. unjust It first to the say did that her father affected her. She prod prod trial courts to allow her, and that physically had never abused teenage body passed abortions when that his conduct was never aimed at her. accomplish opposite purpose. statute to unjust provide It is minors Chapter 33 of the Code does multiple opportunities deprive par- their not define what threat of “emotional ents of legitimate, right their fundamental proved permit abusе” must be a trial involve themselves their children’s have an court to authorize minor to decisions, especially one as momentous as telling parents, abortion without whether to have an abortion. And it is requires there are clues. 33.008 Section *15 unjust encourage to this Court to minors physician that a that a minor who believes appeal every case here with the lure as physical suffer or sexual abuse automatically that this Court will reconsid- Family defined in of the section 261.001 er it on It unjust the merits. is for this report suspected Code must to assume the of surrogate role Regula- of Protective and Department all parents to minors who want abortions in tory This reference section Services.19 telling parents, strongly their but that is within suggests 33.008 that abuse 33.003(i) precisely what the Court has with meaning done its of section is the unrelenting remands. in same as abuse defined section 261.001. part chapter
That statute is 261 of the Code, Family requires child which Ill neglect reported abuse and be and investi- supports The record court’s 261.001(1)(A) gated. defines Section prove by decision that Doe failed including “abuse” as “mental or emotional preponderance of the evidence that she injury to a child that results in an observa- subject would be to emotional abuse if she child’s impairment ble and material parents pregnant told her that she is growth, development, psychological or an wants abortion. Doe testified that her functioning”.20 Absent a clearer indication alcoholic, father he sometimes intent, I defi- legislative would use this “reacts, things proportion ... takes out of nition, in a prescribed related context ... takes it out on” Doe’s mother. [and] chapter applying referred to in sec- no gave examples. Asked her fa- tion physical your “ever ther had become mom”, The record contains no evidence whatso- yes. again, Doe answered But explain. Did beat her? Doe ever that Doe would suffer “an observable did not he say grab impairment growth, so. he her arm? and material [her] did not Did development, psychological functioning” or Was that abusive? Doe never said. When 261.001(1)(A). 33.008. Id. Fam.Code Tex. in section 261.001 of abuse definition pregnant that she if she told her does not expressly it testimony- Family Code because Doe’s wants an abortion. correct, (they’re chapter 261 outside apply Although the trial court specifics. lacked 261.001 course), section and because that her father to believe Doe seemed (correct it is not all-inclusive states that of Doe’s adversely to news might react 33.003(i) does and because section again), he and desired abortion —which pregnancy (no question). 261.001 not refer to section if he is expected to do certainly might be their said, simply up make they then That clearly doubt- completely apathetic not —it Now, between definition abuse. rise own father’s reaction would Doe’s ed that pages a few over abuse. definition level to the of emotional apply expressly which does not trial Code encourage Attempting to certainly usa- but is we, circumstances these our offered: “Sometimes court scratch, ble, invented from lot, and a definition lot minds, to be a going think it’s rather the former is to me that it seems actually going it to be.” than what worse that section The fact clearly preferable. that Doe skeptical was also The trial court for use prescribed 261.001 is father for news from her keep could 33.003(i) whether mother, says nothing about tell her her intent to long, given be use. could or should concern that expressed Justice Gonzales and the Phillips say that do not and Chief Justice parents would relationship with her pres- used cannot be section 261.001 if she did adversely more affected context, want to do not an ent she had them of her situation before tell not stated. it for reasons use abortion. free to credit The trial court was Chief Justice Gonzales har- it did and still
testimony as much as Phillips rightly, say, I think then of it. With aspects other bor doubts about contemplates unreason- “emotional abuse doubts, could well conclude the court those in- causing serious emotional conduct able preponder- proved that Doe had not true under sec- certainly That is jury.” telling par- ance of the evidence abuse, they say, Emotional tion 261.001. mother, ents, expose just her discord”, *16 of familial degree not “[s]ome abuse, had not satis- and thus to emotional embarrassment, “parental dis- or mere or 33.003(i) in section requirement fied that It not disapproval”.22 and appointment notification. Given waiving parental merely by “evidence that established testimony and the brevity feelings of upset or have minor would be specificity her asser- lack of complete anxiety”.23 guilt or feelings of short term rationally find tions, could the trial court fairly All seems sensible. of this real, concerns, did not show while that her But what do Justice Gonzales abuse. a likelihood of Phillips by really mean Justice Chief applica- of Doe’s trial court’s denial scant di- “[t]he This: their words? record by evidence in the supported tion is case], com- present [in rect evidence be affirmed. and should inferences, be might with reasonable bined finding [of a emotional support
sufficient IV inferences”? “reasonable What abuse]”.24 “guesses”? or they mean “inferences” Do and Chief Justice Justice Gonzales Phillips likelihood of Doe’s how the not see “emotional do attempt to define adversely, or the serious- 33.003(i) reacting father of the in section as used abuse” reaction, probable a of such rejecting the ness They begin by Family Code. Ante, at 304. 23. Ante, at 304. 21. at 305. at 304. Ante, Ante, growth, in the child’s impairment Doe can inferred from a material
impact on function- psychological development, no when Doe specific record with facts happen. definition of abuse might ing”, herself does not know what 261.001(1)(A) Doe cer- If Justice and Chief of the Code. Justice Gonzales Phillips matter tainly think that the evidence such abuse as a prove did present enough prove apply record is if one were to of law. Second: even evidence, abuse, then by preponderance finding threshold for lower they by much “unreasonable do not mean as a did not establish its likelihood still injury” causing serious emotional conduct matter of law. Doe’s stated essence, In or “mere assertion”. would sure what her Doe was not Justice father Phillips say Gonzales do, disagree. Doe did not Justice Chief Justice they judge, they that if the trial had been studiously join him Enoch and those who might well have found emotional abuse. Third: in the record. avoid this statement Such a result would show that the words testimony proved if a threat of abuse any their definition lack real content. law, minor any as a matter of then almost paternal at the worried about a outburst significant offered no of a evidence pregnancy of her and desire to have news causing risk of unreasonable conduct seri- judicial bypass an abortion is entitled to fact, injury. did not ous emotional she “I chapter under 33 as a matter of law. claim to have ever sustained serious emo- know,” if I just say, well “that might she injury tional as a result of her father’s my pregnant I’m and want tell father If conduct. Justice Gonzales Chief abortion, yell he’ll at me me cause Phillips say really mean what Justice Legis- If that is all the emotional abuse.” abuse, about emotional Doe’s evidence abuse, might lature meant emotional not meet For could their definition. them spared as well have itself the effort to conclude otherwise doubt on their casts This, actually, passing the statute. is Jus- definition. dоes set tice Enoch’s view: the statute very simply standard. But it is high V think, after time and impossible to all the BakeR, Enoch, Justice chap- expended effort the enactment of Hankinson, and Justice O’Neill ter that the intended noth- proved hold that Doe as a matter lawof thinks ing more than what Justice Enoch that she would suffer emotional abuse it did. she told her wanted an Wrapping abortion. in trans- themselves Legislature’s purposes, Concerning the rhetoric, parent spousal abuse these Jus- as- his associates now Justice Enoch any tices cannot conceive how reasonable *17 remarkably—that they agreed have sert — person contrary could take a view course, along. Why, they me all of theirs. say, encourage intended to Well, in children’s parent’s the reasons are not elusive. First: involvement their discourage teenage pregnancy in and to there is no evidence the record before lives us, just repeatedly at- as I have taking even the statements of the and abortion — (which any testimony in Doe or Doe 2 did torney and as stated.26 Where be25), acknowledge plain those this they may telling that Doe’s Justices legislative Why, an intent? Nowhere. be parents of her intention obtain abor- sure, they say, parents in and now have funda- might tion an observable ] “result! curiam) Maries, (Tex.1997) (per 25. See United States v. ("While (Tex.1997) ("Normally, attorney's be an statements must 326-327 is true evidence.”). oath be considered under attorney's that an unsworn are not statements evidence, they it is true ... have no Garсia, Ante, special significance.”); Banda v. 955 26. at 306. (cid:127) standard appellate mental, to raise their determined rights constitutional kind; briefing any my without authority their dis- review citing as children — join.27 they did not and senting opinions which views, They profess to hold these (cid:127) (reversed once, vacat- set aside three in a case. yet apply them twice) decisions even trial court ed abuse”,28 Enoch and “Abuse is Justice sufficient they were based on though observe, certainly that is and his associates evidence, of dis- not an abuse were aside, tautologies But hard to contradict. cretion, otherwise free were is, prove did not simply the fact Doe essentially according no defer- error — preponderance this case factual deter- the trial court’s ence to Enoch mischaraeterizes evidence. minations holding that trial as because court (cid:127) case, summarily reversed in a fourth eventually when upset will Doe’s father be explanation without the lower courts abortion, might out about her he finds granted. application and ordered him the trial court well tell now—that immediate abuse weighed Doe’s father’s Further, cases have parental is an abuse. But that against his eventual re- completely exhausted Court’s of the trial unfair mischaracterization weeks, and no past three sources for guardian stated view. The minor’s court’s sight. Though the Court relief is father what her that Doe was not sure pres- intense time understandably under told of her situation. would do he were appeals, it should to rule on these sure statement, which the How can this its de- to where give serious consideration believed, reasonably obviously and years ago leading. Fourteen are cisions really who believes ignored by anyone be complained O’Connor right to have a fundamental Supreme Court’s United States decisions? involved their children’s be major already worked decisions “have state- guardian’s is that The answer ju- constitutional the Court’s distortion only by someone disregarded can ment no- parental This Court’s risprudence.” denying parental notification bent on distorting its sub- are tification decisions every case. jurisprudence procedural stantive ways that can dominating its docket VI in other cases. never be reconciled notifi- third This is the Court’s weeks. It than two cation case less has take stock of what begin to
should days. happened past in these few applica- considered The trial court has: Court sympathetically sensitively tion (cid:127) statute, conclusion, Paren- major which construed a a reasoned reached Act, once ref- paren- Not one abruptly tal Notification sets aside. Court purposes us erencing legislative ruling its that has reached tal notification ruling is history; Today’s let stand. has (cid:127) 1(1), than no more defensible Act without benefit construed the *18 2, contradictory of 1(11), no less and Doe or Attorney General of the views intent, de- and no less Legislature’s in the participated else who
anyone I rights. and familial structive legisla- drafting and еnactment dissent. tion; College Obstetri 29. Thornburgh Ante, v. American at 307. 27. 476 U.S. Gynecologists, cians & (O’Connor, (1986) 90 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Ante, at 307. J., dissenting). OWEN, body considerable of law from this Court dissenting. a This indi regarding emotional distress. majority A of the has failed to Court Legislature meant emotional cates that the agree Legislature on the what the intend- other than se something to mean abuse 33.003(i) Family ed in section of the Code distress, which this Court vere emotional abuse,”
when used term “emotional that is so severe has said is “distress I Chapter which is not defined in expected to person could be no reasonable by the apply employed would the definition it,” highly “all un and includes endure Fami- Legislature in section 261.001 of the mental reactions such as embar pleasant ly majority A also Code. of the Court has horror, shame, rassment, hu grief, fright, agree judgment failed to on the that this Southwest, miliation, worry.” GTE render, major- a though Court should even (Tex. Bruce, Inc. v. ity agree of the does that there was 1999). of appeals’ no error either the court did not judgment. Although Legislature or the trial court’s define 33.003, justice abuse” in section it has Because the interest of does “emotional case, Family I done so Code. require a remand would elsewhere in- affirm Ac- “mental or emotional appeals’ judgment. the court of “Abuse” includes in an observable cordingly, jury I dissent. to child results impairment and material the child’s or growth, development, psychological functioning.” Jane Doe contends in this Court that Tex. Fam.Code 261.001(1)(A). § she established as a matter of law that “Abuse” also inсludes in a parents “causing permitting notification of one of her of an the child impending lead the child a men- emo- situation which sustains injury in an physi- tional abuse. She has never been tal or emotional that results cally by impairment abused either of her and material in the parents, observable thought growth, development, psychologi- there no indication that she child’s was 261.001(1)(B). physically functioning.” that either of her cal Id. chapter her if appear were notified that she These definitions However, seeking Family requires person an abortion. Jane Code report specified Doe testified that her father had make a authorities “become physical” with her “a or mental health physical mother when he was when child’s intoxicated, adversely because of some- or welfare has been affected sometimes 261.101(a). thing neglect.” that Jane Doe had done. Jane Doe abuse or Id. guided by those defini- said she feared that her father were Courts should be notified, subjected construing applying tions in section her mother would be abuse, and that Code at least would amount 33.003© emotional abuse of Doe. two reasons. Jane Jane similarly said that she feared that notifica- First, Legislature a we have from the in physical tion of her mother would result it considers to be clear statement mother, correspondingly abuse of her that, emotional abuse of a minor. It seems to emotional abuse of Jane because definition, its fashioning rather than own her mother would infоrm her father of Legislature’s defini- apply court should pregnancy Jane Doe’s and of her intention interpreting other tion of “abuse” when to have an abortion. This was the unless there is provisions of same Code regarding evidence emotional abuse. good doing for not so. Deference reason Legislature’s the words to the definition of emotional Legislature
The
chose to use
interpreting
appropriate
“emotional abuse” in section
abuse is
symmetry
did not use the term
because there is some
33.003©
*19
distress,”
requirement
report abuse
though
even
there is between the
to
“emotional
par-
in which the minor’s
if
a situation
bypass
parental
of
notification
and both have been
at-
have divorced
261.001
ents
may
there
be abuse. Section
appointed conservators. See
to set forth concrete boundaries as
tempts
Tex. Fam.
that an order
(requiring
153.076
person
required
a
under section Code
to when
must
parents
both
conservators
report
appointing
abuse.
261.101 to
See
Fam.
Tex.
261.101(a).
duty
to
261.001(1),
parent
“each
has
Similarly,
§§
reflect that
Code
timely man-
parent
other
in a
to set boundaries
inform the
attempts
section 33.003
concerning
significant
of
information
required
deny
to
a ner
to when a court is
as
health, education, and welfare of the
knowledge that his or her child
parent the
child”).
constitutionality of
section
Imposing
an
undergo
is about to
abortion.
parental
applied
153.076 if
obligation
report
affirmative
emo-
Hodgson
light
questionable
matters is
bypass
and the
tional abuse
417, 450-52,
Minnesota,
v.
497 U.S.
potential emotional abuse
rights because of
(1990).)
2926,
Second, of Jane Doe’s for the reasons articulated clear, a trial court was positive that it is sometimes opinion, Justice Gonzales’s of law required to conclude as a matter an emo- difficult to define what constitutes were if one of Jane injury. at 301. The tional See notified, may be emotional- objective then Jane attempts give Code explain did not ly there has abused. Jane Doe determining when standards father she said that her must be she meant when emotional abuse. The abuse been mother. physical” with her and it must im- had “become and material” “observable any the incidents did not describe growth, development, or She pair “the child’s father had believed that her which she psychological functioning.” Tex. Fam.Code 261.001(1)(B). mother. objective definition abused her This context of particularly appropriate sum, sufficient evi- legally In there was and child. relationship parent between failure to the trial court’s support dence to A must have wide latitude exert parent may of a lead parent find that notification discipline a child. influence over and to Doe, of Jane and Jane to emotional abuse Often, discipline is intended influence her contentions as Doe did not establish But, cause emotional distress. and does matter of law. cannot of that nature be emotional distress denying parent information the basis for II fact that his or her child as basic as the in In re joined the Court’s abortion. intends to have an pregnant and (Tex.2000) {Jane Jane I), that case to the remanding determina- light Legislature’s 1Doe proceedings. Jane court for further level of emotional of what rises to the tion was “mature and suffi- minor, that she no evidence contended of a there is decision to make the subjected ciently well informed may be that Jane Doe the record meaning of Further, within the to have an abortion” the trial abuse. to emotional 33.003(i), more and she offered assume, required was not attempt in an cursory evidence mother than law, matter of Jane to the deci- contention. Prior support daughter that her was about were notified I, had no Texas court abortion, sion Jane her mother would to have an informed,” at “sufficiently well interpreted While there then tell her father. publicly that was opinion in an least not of evidence that Jane more than a scintilla jurisdictions in other Courts convey that informa- available. Doe’s mother would showing type on the father, agreed have not was not the evidence tion to minor is “suffi- (The necessary prove that a not confronted Court is conclusive.
321 views of widely divergent on their type the of evi- based ciently well informed” or the questions that certain what motivated inquiry. Compare on the dence that bears vague Doe 3 485, to Jane posed 570 Anonymous re 253 Neb. thе during made (1997), that the court Anony- re statements with In N.W.2d as to mous, goes so far hearing. (Ala.Civ.App. 660 So.2d Justice Enoch what the 1995). assertions about repeated with the make I therefore concurred are Those assertions trial court believed. justice, that in the interest of Jane Court record. But by the wholly unsupported have the 1 and the trial court should unequivocal the trial court made interpretation even had benefit of this Court’s during hearing, “sufficiently informed.” statements well state- rely upon such impermissible 33.003(i)regard- provision “not entitled Appellate courts are ments. sexual, ing or emotional abuse is physical, judge any comments that to look to Although matter. individual different during made” a bench trial to may have other courts dis- justices on this or In re ruling. basis for its determine the particular facts establish agree whether (Tex.1984). W.E.R., law, “physi- terms abuse as a matter think reviewing what we should not be We cal and “emotional abuse” abusé” believe but trial court did or did not standpoint connotations from the clear judgment trial court’s rather inquiry. relevant to the what evidence is support is evidence to whether there type of evi- Practitioners understand what any omitted find- express trial court’s had they dence must marshal. Jane Doe 3 necessary to and conclusions that are ings ample opportunity through her counsel judgment. support that po- and her ad litem to offer evidence of The fact that Doe 3 tential abuse. Jane proof meet does not did not her burden I II I join of Justice Gon- parts
requirе a remand. for the reasons consid- opinion, zales’s fact 3 ar- Nor does the that Jane Doe above, I would affirm the ered in this that she mature and gues I therefore dissent. appeals. the court of informed to make the deci- well have an remand- support sion to ABBOTT, dissenting. ing hearing for another based on this case I with much of Justice While concur I. Doe 3 the decision Jane Doe Jane I to em- opinion, separately write Hecht’s virtually attempt made no the trial court it enacted single point. When phasize a that she was mature and suffi- prove Act, Legisla- the Parental Notification testimony Her fo- ciently well informed. Texas trial court—not the ture made the exclusively on whether she cused almost fact. As it finder of Supreme Court —the subjected to emotional abuse might be findings the trial court’s fact concerns notified. Under one of her were case, role Supreme Court’s the Texas circumstances, justice interest of these findings un- reviewing those is limited to by a remand. is not served analysis. legal sufficiency der a case, find the trial court did not In this
Ill par- one of the minor’s that notification of sexual, or emo- physical, lead to “may ents opinions A brief word about two of the Although the the minor.” that both tional abuse of in this case is in order. note a trial court’s conclu- support record could opin- Enoch’s Justice Hecht’s contrary,1 the trial court did subjective sion to the rely thoughts con- ions thus left with contrary. are trial court find to the We clusions that ascribe point, Justice Hecht and I differ. 1. On this *21 determining whether the single task of law that
record establishes as matter lead to such abuse. Not-
withstanding high Enoch’s rheto-
ric, simply the record does not establish proposition as a matter of law.
For the reasons discussed affirm the court opinion,
Hecht’s appeal’s judgment which affirms the
trial court’s decision.
In re Jane DOE
No. 00-0213.
Supreme of Texas.
March