SUMMARY: A state ward minor was not sufficiently mature to have an abortion because she showed neither that she understand the consequences of having an abortion nor that she had sufficient experience and judgment. The statutory language under N.R.S. 71-6903 permitting a court to allow an abortion by a minor if there is evidence of prior abuse or neglect by a parent does not apply to a minor who no longer has legal ties to the parent who caused the abuse or neglect. Other issues as to whether foster parents can consent or whether a state ward can get an abortion without Department consent is irrelevant under N.R.S. 71-6903.
A 16-year-old state ward seeking an abortion filed an expedited appeal after the district court denied her request. She was removed from the parental home along with her sibling in February 2011 after her father broke some of her bones, and the parents’ parental rights were terminated in May 2013. At the confidential hearing with the district court, petitioner testified that she could not financially support the child or be a good mother, and feared her current foster placement would break up if her foster parents found out due to their strong religious beliefs. The district court found that the guardians for purposes of consent to the abortion would be her foster parents and concluded that the petitioner was not sufficiently mature to decide whether to have an abortion and that it was not in her best interests to do so. Therefore, it denied her request. Petitioner appealed through the expedited process to the Supreme Court.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court decision. It first held that N.R.S. 71-6903(3) which allows a court to consent to an abortion if the minor is a victim of abuse or neglect does not apply to the petitioner because her guardian at the time of the request was not the abuser; rather, it was her parents whose parental rights had already been terminated by the time of the hearing. The Supreme Court clearly concluded that for the pregnant woman to succeed under N.R.S. 71-6903(3), she must establish that a parent or guardian who occupies that role at the time of petition must have been responsible for the abuse or neglect. The Supreme Court considered the other ground under 71-6903(2) when the minor “is sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion”, and reviewed the evidence that petitioner was a high school senior who raised her two younger siblings but has not lived on her own, is dependent on her foster parents for financial support, and has no work experience. The Supreme Court noted that although she attended five counseling sessions and had three ultrasounds, “[s]he presented no evidence regarding her understanding of the emotional and psychological consequences of abortion or of the immediate and long-range implications of the procedure.” 286 Neb. 640, 650. It concluded petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she was sufficiently mature and well informed to decide to have an abortion. As to petitioner’s claim that she had the right to an abortion without Department consent since she was a state ward, the Supreme Court noted that the Department’s consent is irrelevant because the only consideration for the court was whether it fit within N.R.S. 71-6903 and that petitioner’s status as a state ward doesn’t change those parameters. It reached the same conclusion on the issue of who is her guardian.