Florida’s First District Court of Appeal has affirmed a trial judge’s decision that a parentless 16-year-old is not “sufficiently mature to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.”
Under Florida law, a pregnant minor’s parent or legal guardian needs to consent to the termination of that minor’s pregnancy, with certain exceptions. The minor sought before Escambia County Circuit Judge Jessica Frydrychowicz to “bypass parental notice of and consent for the termination of her pregnancy.” The teenager was 10 weeks pregnant at the time and lives with a relative but has an appointed guardian. In the petition, the minor wrote she was “not ready to have a baby,” unemployed and “still in school,” the father was “unable to assist her” and that her guardian had consented to the procedure. Her application was denied, with the possibility of re-evaluating the decision at a later date.
On Monday, the district court of appeal’s three-judge panel affirmed Frydrychowicz’s decision that the minor “had not established by clear and convincing evidence” that she was “sufficiently mature” to decide to terminate her pregnancy.
Judge Scott Makar dissented in part, concurring on Frydrychowicz’s factual findings and the decision. He wrote that “the trial judge apparently sees this matter as a very close call, finding that the minor was ‘credible,’ ‘open’ with the judge, and nonevasive. Indeed, the minor ‘showed, at times, that she is stable and mature enough to make this decision.'” Makar also noted that the minor was knowledgeable about the considerations relevant to her abortion. He said that by leaving open the possibility of further proceedings, “[T]he trial judge must have been contemplating that the minor—who was ten weeks pregnant at the time—would potentially be returning before long—given the statutory time constraints at play—to shore up any lingering doubt the trial court harbored.” Makar also inferred that Frydrychowicz could have been giving the minor additional time to consider the consequences of her decision to abort, due to the minor, who had previously experienced trauma, experiencing fresh trauma shortly before making the decision. Makar said he would have remanded the case for this factor as well as for the issue of guardian consent to be addressed.
