Plotnick v. Deluccia
2013 WL 7869380, 85 A.3d 1039, 434 N.J. Super. 597 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A pregnant woman's constitutionally protected right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause outweighs a putative father's interest in being present at the birth of his child. Compelling a mother to notify the father of labor or permit his presence in the delivery room against her wishes constitutes an undue burden on her right to bodily autonomy and medical privacy.
Facts:
- Plaintiff and Defendant, who were never married, entered into a relationship in late 2012.
- Defendant discovered she was pregnant in February 2013, after which Plaintiff proposed and she accepted.
- During the summer or fall of 2013, Defendant ended the engagement.
- Plaintiff attended two of the Defendant's doctor appointments during the pregnancy.
- Plaintiff, through his attorney, expressed his desire to be involved in the pregnancy and the child's life.
- Defendant objected to Plaintiff's presence in the delivery room, citing her right to privacy, but stated she would add him to the hospital visitor list.
Procedural Posture:
- On November 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for an order to show cause in the New Jersey Superior Court, Chancery Division, a state trial court.
- The application sought a temporary mandatory injunction to compel Defendant to, among other things, notify him of labor and permit his presence at the birth.
- Defendant filed a letter brief in opposition to the application.
- The New Jersey Attorney General was notified and filed a letter brief but did not appear.
- The trial court held a hearing on the application, with Plaintiff appearing in person and Defendant appearing by telephone from the hospital.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a putative father have a legally enforceable right to be notified when the mother enters labor and to be present at the child's birth over the mother's objection?
Opinions:
Majority - Mohammed, J.S.C.
No, a putative father does not have a legally enforceable right to be present at the child's birth over the mother's objection. Citing the principles established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court found that a pregnant woman possesses a fundamental right to privacy and bodily integrity rooted in the Due Process Clause. The court reasoned that since the mother physically bears the child and endures the unique physical and psychological burdens of pregnancy and labor, her interests are paramount to the father's before the child is born. Forcing a mother to accept an unwanted person in the delivery room would be an undue burden, causing additional stress and infringing on her established constitutional rights. The court also noted that a mother's rights as a patient in a hospital give her the authority to control who may be present during a medical procedure.
Analysis:
This case is significant as a matter of first impression, extending the constitutional privacy principles from the abortion context of Planned Parenthood v. Casey to the context of childbirth. The ruling establishes a strong precedent that a mother's right to bodily autonomy and medical privacy during labor and delivery is superior to a putative father's interest in being present. This decision reinforces the legal framework that a woman's control over her body is paramount before birth, creating a high bar for any legal challenge seeking to compel a pregnant woman's actions regarding her medical care or personal privacy.
Unlock the full brief for Plotnick v. Deluccia