Jane Doe 1, In re
| Decision Date | 11 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-2274,90-2274 |
| Citation | 566 N.E.2d 1181,57 Ohio St.3d 135 |
| Parties | In re JANE DOE 1. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Absent an abuse of discretion by the juvenile court, the dismissal of a complaint brought by an unemancipated pregnant minor seeking authorization to have an abortion pursuant to R.C. 2151.85 shall not be disturbed.
Appellant, "Jane Doe," 1 is a seventeen-year-old female minor living with her parents in Hamilton County. On November 8, 1990, appellant filed this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County, Juvenile Division, seeking court approval to have an abortion without notification to her parent, guardian or custodian. In her complaint, appellant alleged that she is sufficiently mature and well enough informed to intelligently decide whether to have an abortion without parental notification, and further, that parental notification of her desire to have an abortion would not be in her best interest.
A hearing was held by the court on November 13, 1990, wherein appellant testified on her own behalf along with an expert witness, Dr. Joseph Rauh, who is the director of the Division of Adolescent Medicine at Children's Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati. At the hearing, appellant testified that she is a senior in high school and maintains a 3.0 grade point average. Appellant has been involved in sports in high school, plans to attend college and has worked in various jobs since she was sixteen. Appellant further testified that she is responsible for obtaining her own medical care. In June 1990, appellant had an abortion with her mother's consent but without her father's knowledge. Appellant testified that she feared that her father would beat her if he found out she is pregnant and wants to obtain an abortion, and that her mother would tell her father if her mother knew that appellant had become pregnant again. Appellant also testified that her father had struck her in the past for coming home late at night and for having a bad report card from school.
Dr. Rauh testified that he believes that appellant understands the risks of obtaining an abortion, and that letting her decide whether to have an abortion without parental notification was consistent with good medical judgment.
At the conclusion of the testimony, the court held that appellant was " * * * not sufficiently mature to make a judgment called for by * * * [R.C. 2151.85]." The court further found " * * * that there is not sufficient evidence of a pattern of physical, or sexual abuse, or emotional abuse of the complainant by her father or her mother so that notification of one of them will produce the threat that is alleged. * * * " The court therefore dismissed the complaint.
Upon appeal, the court of appeals affirmed, finding that the evidence supported the trial court's finding that appellant failed to prove the allegations of her complaint by clear and convincing evidence.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Alphonse A. Gerhardstein, Cincinnati, for appellant.
The determinative issue before us is whether the court of appeals was correct in affirming the dismissal of appellant's complaint seeking authorization to obtain an abortion without parental notification pursuant to R.C. 2151.85. Stated differently, we must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that appellant did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) she is sufficiently mature and well enough informed to decide whether to have an abortion without parental notification; and/or (2) that parental notification of her desire to have an abortion is not in her best interest. Since we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling as it did, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals below.
R.C. 2151.85 provides in pertinent part:
Last year, the United States Supreme Court upheld the facial validity of R.C. 2151.85 on Fourteenth Amendment due process grounds. Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1990), 497 U.S. 502, 110 S.Ct. 2972, 111 L.Ed.2d 405.
A review of the foregoing statutory framework reveals that the juvenile court is vested with a certain amount of discretion in determining whether the minor is sufficiently mature to make the decision to terminate a pregnancy without parental notification, and/or whether parental notification of the minor's desire to obtain an abortion would be in her best interest. While the correctness of a juvenile court's dismissal of a complaint brought under R.C. 2151.85 must be scrutinized on a case-by-case basis, a reviewing court must evaluate the trial court's determination under an abuse of discretion standard. As this court has defined this standard, "[t]he term 'abuse of discretion' connotes more than an error of law or of judgment; it implies that the court's attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. * * * " State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157, 16 O.O.3d 169, 173, 404 N.E.2d 144, 149. See, also, Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 5 OBR 481, 450 N.E.2d 1140.
When applying the abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court is not free to merely substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Berk v. Matthews (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 169, 559 N.E.2d 1301, 1308.
Above all, a reviewing court should be guided by a presumption that the findings of a trial court are correct, since the trial judge " * * * is best able to view the witnesses and observe their demeanor, gestures and voice inflections, and use these observations in weighing the credibility of the proffered testimony. * * * " Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 80, 10 OBR 408, 410, 461 N.E.2d 1273, 1276.
In reviewing the testimony proffered in the cause sub judice under this standard, we believe that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that appellant did not sustain her burden in proving, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ronald E. Wright
... ... 715; State v. Montgomery (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 410, ... 575 N.E.2d 167. Furthermore, when applying the abuse of ... discretion standard, a reviewing court is not free to merely ... substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. In ... re Jane Doe 1 (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 566 N.E.2d 1181 ... (citing Berk v. Matthews (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 161, ... 359 N.E.2d 1301) ... B ... ADMISSIBILITY ... OF OTHER ACT EVIDENCE ... Generally, all relevant evidence is admissible. See Evid.R ... 402 ... ...
-
Wendell A. Humphrey v. Janis Lane
... ... decision regarding injunctive relief. An abuse of discretion ... implies more than an error of law or of judgment. Rather, an ... abuse of discretion suggests that the trial court acted in an ... unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner. In re ... Jane Doe 1 (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 566 N.E.2d 1181; ... Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 ... N.E.2d 1140 ... B ... Smith standard applies ... We ... first will address appellant's argument that the ... Smith ... ...
-
Jeffrey N. Brookover and Susan Brookover v. Flexmag Industries, Inc.
...for that of the trial court. See State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trustees (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 728, 732, 654 N.E.2d 1254, 1258; In re Jane Doe 1 (1991). Ohio St.3d 135, 137-138, 566 N.E.2d 1181, 1184; Berk v. Matthews (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 169, 559 N.E.2d 1301, 1308. Indeed, to ......
-
In re Contemnor Caron
...for that of the trial court. Berk v. Matthews (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 169, 559 N.E.2d 1301, 1308-1309; In re Jane Doe 1 (1991) 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 138, 566 N.E.2d 1181, 1184-1185. The standard for reversal of a contempt finding is "abuse of discretion." State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2......
-
Decisional dignity: teenage abortion, bypass hearings, and the misuse of law.
...old petitioner testified that "her pregnancy resulted from sexual abuse practiced upon her by her father."). (160) See In re Jane Doe 1,566 N.E.2d 1181, 1181 (Ohio 1990) (petition (161) Id. (162) See In re Doe 3, 645 N.E.2d 134, 134-35 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (denial reversed on appeal); In re......
-
Do not resuscitate decision-making: Ohio's do not resuscitate law should be amended to include a mature minor's right to initiate a DNR order.
...A.2d 1151 (PA. 2000). (13) See OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2151.85 (Anderson 2002). (14) 443 U.S. 622 (1979). (15) 497 U.S. 502 (1990). (16) 566 N.E.2d 1181 (Ohio (17) 2002 Ohio 3926, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 3994 (1st Dist. Ohio Ct. App. 2002). (18) Union P.R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (18......