Ex parte Anonymous
Decision Date | 05 July 2001 |
Parties | Ex parte ANONYMOUS, a minor. In the matter of Anonymous, a minor. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
On Submission of Findings
An unemancipated minor petitioned this Court to review the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming the trial court's denial of the minor's petition for a waiver of parental consent to an abortion. In re Anonymous, 808 So.2d 1024 (Ala.Civ.App. 2001). This Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remanded the cause to that court with instructions that it remand the case to the trial court for the trial court to supplement its findings. Because time was of the essence, the trial court was instructed to submit its findings, as supplemented, to this Court. Ex parte Anonymous, 808 So.2d 1025 (Ala. 2001). The trial court has now submitted its supplemental findings.
The record in this case reflects that the minor is 16 years old. She is a sophomore in high school; her grades are Bs and Cs. She is presently not employed and has never been employed. She says that she plans to attend college. At the time of the hearing on her petition she was six to seven weeks pregnant. The minor testified that the baby's father, who is 18 years old, has completed his freshman year of college. She further testified that she has not informed him of her pregnancy.
The minor's parents are divorced, and she resides with her father, who has sole custody. She testified that she has a good relationship with her father and that she has virtually no relationship with her mother. She testified that her father is a devout Catholic who is opposed to abortion. She further testified that she believed her father would "freak out" if she told him of her pregnancy. She stated that she believed if he found out about her pregnancy he would send her to stay with one of her relatives and that he would want her to carry the baby to term and then place the baby for adoption. She believed this would be his response because she had an older sister who had become pregnant; she said her father had planned to have her older sister live with relatives out-of-state until the baby was born and then the baby was to be placed for adoption. The sister, however, miscarried before the plan could be implemented. The minor stated that she decided to proceed with a judicial-bypass action rather than ask her father to consent to her having an abortion because she had gone to a clinic operated by Planned Parenthood and the people there had talked to her about the abortion and told her that she could get a "judicial-bypass termination."
The minor testified that she had discussed abortion with a number of friends her age and with a 25-year-old male friend. The minor testified that a woman who worked at the Planned Parenthood clinic had informed her about the abortion procedure and the alternatives to abortion.
When the hearing on her petition began, the minor had not discussed the matter with a physician. At the request of the minor's counsel, the hearing was recessed. When the hearing reconvened four days later, the minor had spoken to her long-time pediatrician. She had discussed with the pediatrician the alternatives to abortion. She testified that she understood that she could give the baby up for adoption, keep it herself, or have an abortion. She had discussed with her pediatrician whether she was physically able to have an abortion. When asked whether she and the doctor discussed any physical problems that would pose a danger to her if she had an abortion, she responded that the doctor had said that she would not have any problem or that more than likely she would not have any.
The minor had scheduled an appointment to discuss the abortion procedure with the doctor who was to perform the abortion. However, when the minor was told that she would have to wait at the clinic for a short time before she could see the doctor, she left the clinic.
The minor has received no counseling concerning the psychological impact of undergoing an abortion. She states that she has read a pamphlet from Planned Parenthood that states "[M]any women are relieved after an abortion" and that even though "some are sad after killing their baby, they recover quickly."
When asked to describe her understanding of the abortion procedure, she stated:
She also stated that she understood that about three weeks after the abortion the patient goes in for a follow-up visit. She stated that the risks of the procedure are hemorrhaging, damage to the uterus, infertility, and death.
When asked if she had considered the alternatives and had reached a decision she stated: "I would like to have an abortion but if not then I'd give the baby up for adoption." When the trial judge asked her why she chose abortion as her first option, she responded,
The trial court's supplemental findings read, in pertinent part:
Applying the ore tenus rule, as we are required to do by Ex parte Anonymous, 803 So.2d 542 (Ala.2001), this Court affords the trial court's findings considerable deference and will reverse the trial court's judgment only when that judgment is "plainly erroneous or manifestly unjust." The trial court's responsibility in this case was to determine whether the minor is mature and well-informed enough about the abortion procedure to make an independent decision to undergo an abortion without parental consent or whether an abortion would be in the minor's best interest. See § 26-21-4(f), Ala.Code 1975.
In this case the trial court denied the request for a waiver, finding that the minor was not sufficiently mature to make such a decision without consulting her parent or legal guardian and that the performance of an abortion is not in the minor's best interest. See In re Anonymous, 805 So.2d 726, 728 (Ala.Civ.App.2001). Our review of the cold appellate record indicates that this conclusion is correct. The trial court had the opportunity to observe the minor and consider her demeanor as she testified. The trial court is in a far better position than is this Court to determine as a matter of fact the minor's maturity and level of knowledge. The trial court's findings after hearing the minor and observing her demeanor as she testified bolster our conclusion.
We conclude that the trial court's judgment is correct; it is not plainly erroneous or manifestly unjust. Therefore, we deny the petition.
PETITION DENIED.
The petitioner asks us to reverse the judgments of the trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reprod. Health Servs. v. Strange
..., Ex parte Anonymous , 889 So. 2d 525, 525–26 (Ala. 2003) ; In re Anonymous , 812 So. 2d 1234, 1238–39 (Ala. 2001) ; Ex parte Anonymous , 808 So. 2d 1030, 1034 (Ala. 2001) ; Ex parte Anonymous , 806 So. 2d 1269, 1279 (Ala. 2001). Thus we see no problem that the new law helps to cure.We find......
-
Ex parte Anonymous
...that I maintain my objections to applying the ore tenus rule to cases filed pursuant to this statute. See my dissents in Ex parte Anonymous, 808 So.2d 1030 (Ala.2001); Ex parte Anonymous, 806 So.2d 1269 (Ala.2001); and Ex parte Anonymous, 803 So.2d 542 (Ala. 2001). Even reviewed under the o......
-
Ex parte Anonymous
...810 So.2d 786 (Ala. 2001) ("Ex parte Anonymous (July 30)"); Ex parte Anonymous, 808 So.2d 1025, opinion on submission of findings, 808 So.2d 1030 (Ala.2001); Ex parte Anonymous, 806 So.2d 1269 (Ala.2001) ("Ex parte Anonymous (June 21)"); Ex parte Anonymous, 803 So.2d 542 (Ala.2001) ("Ex par......
-
In re Anonymous
...and will reverse the trial court's judgment only when that judgment is ‘plainly erroneous or manifestly unjust.’ " Ex parte Anonymous, 808 So.2d 1030, 1033 (Ala. 2001). Even if the minor were deemed too immature and not sufficiently well informed to independently make the decision, the juve......