Jane Doe v. James Uthmeier, Attorney General
N/A (Slip Opinion) (2025)
Rule of Law:
The judicial waiver provisions of Florida's parental notice and consent statute are unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they deprive parents of notice and the opportunity to be heard regarding their minor child's medical decisions.
Facts:
- Jane Doe is an unemancipated 17-year-old pregnant female.
- She sought to terminate her pregnancy without notifying or obtaining the consent of her father.
- Doe claimed she was sufficiently mature to make the decision independently and that parental notification was not in her best interest.
- She had previously petitioned the same court for a similar waiver 11 months prior.
- During the waiver hearing, Doe provided testimony regarding her maturity and personal circumstances.
- The presiding judge noted significant inconsistencies between Doe's current testimony and the testimony she provided 11 months earlier.
- The judge found Doe's current testimony to be inconsistent and lacking in credibility.
Procedural Posture:
- The minor filed a petition for judicial waiver of parental consent in the Circuit Court for Clay County.
- The Circuit Court held a hearing on the petition.
- The Circuit Court denied the petition based on a lack of maturity and failure to prove best interests.
- The minor appealed the denial to the Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal ordered briefing on constitutional questions.
- The Attorney General of Florida filed a motion to intervene in the appeal.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal granted the Attorney General's motion to intervene.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the waiver based on the minor's lack of credibility, and do the statutory provisions authorizing such waivers violate the Due Process rights of parents?
Opinions:
Majority - Pratt
Yes, the trial court acted within its discretion, and the waiver statute is unconstitutional. The court affirmed the denial on two grounds. First, under the abuse of discretion standard, the trial court properly evaluated the minor's credibility and demeanor. Because the minor gave inconsistent testimony compared to a prior hearing, the trial court was justified in finding her not credible and lacking the requisite maturity. Second, applying the 'tipsy coachman' doctrine, the court held that the judicial waiver statute itself violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and control of their children, including medical decisions. Following the reversal of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs, there is no longer a federal constitutional right to abortion that overrides this parental interest. Therefore, a statute that allows a state proceeding to strip parents of their right to notice and a hearing regarding their child's medical procedure is unconstitutional.
Concurring - MacIver
Yes, the denial should be affirmed, and it is necessary to address the constitutional question immediately. While courts generally avoid deciding constitutional issues if a case can be resolved on other grounds, this case presents a rare exception. The violation of parental rights inherent in the judicial waiver process is 'capable of repetition but likely to evade review.' Because these proceedings are confidential and non-adversarial by design, parents are never notified that their rights are being adjudicated. Without the Attorney General's intervention in this specific appeal, this constitutional defect would remain unaddressed, continuing to violate parental rights in secrecy.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant shift in Florida family and privacy law following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs. By declaring the judicial waiver process unconstitutional, the Fifth District Court of Appeal effectively mandates parental involvement for minors seeking abortions, removing the 'judicial bypass' option in its jurisdiction. This ruling prioritizes the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and medical care of their children over the minor's privacy interest. The decision creates a likely conflict with other districts or existing state statutory schemes, necessitating review by the Florida Supreme Court.
