A Florida appeals court on Monday upheld a decision that denied a 16-year-old an abortion because of concerns that she lacked the maturity to make the decision, despite her statements that she was “not ready to have a child.” The teenager, described in court documents as “almost seventeen years old and without parents” and identified only as Jane Doe 22-B, had submitted a handwritten application seeking a waiver of the state’s parental notification and consent requirements. Under Florida law, an abortion generally cannot be performed on a minor without the consent of a parent or guardian. In her application, according to the appeals court, the teenager wrote that she is still in school and does not have a job and that “the father cannot help her”. Court records show she was 10 weeks pregnant at the time she sought court permission to terminate her pregnancy. Jane Doe 22-B lives with a relative and has a guardian appointed. She is pursuing a GED through a program that supports young women who have experienced trauma. She suffered “renewed trauma”, according to the appeal court ruling, after the death of a friend. She decided to have an abortion shortly after. Escambia County Circuit Judge Jennifer Frydrychowicz dismissed the petition in what a 1st District Court of Appeal Judge Scott Makar said appeared to be “a very close call.” The appeals court upheld Frydrychowicz’s decision, with a three-judge majority agreeing that the lower court’s order and findings were “neither vague nor lacking” in a way that would require review. The decision was condemned by Florida lawmakers who support abortion access. State Rep. Anna Escamani (D) tweeted that “there is a lot of cruelty in Florida’s anti-abortion policies.” “Instead of trusting her and listening to her,” he wrote about the 16-year-old, “the state is forcing her to give birth.” Florida legal experts said it’s difficult to understand the full context of the case because the details from the trial court are sealed, though they questioned why the girl wasn’t appointed an attorney and why she checked a box on her application saying she didn’t ask for one. Thirty-five states have judicial override laws, which allow minors to ask a court to grant them permission to have an abortion where they would otherwise need the approval of a parent or guardian. Florida has one of the toughest standards, according to Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis, who previously taught at Florida about the history, politics and law of reproductive health care. State lawmakers expanded Florida’s parental involvement law in 2020, requiring teens to not only notify a parent but also obtain their consent. “Trying to glean what the judge did is difficult,” Ziegler said. “But this is a person who we know has experienced recent trauma and is not an expert in navigating the legal system. This seems to be directed at her or to imply that she is “not mature”. “ In a puzzling detail from the case, the teenager said in her plea that her guardian “is fine with it [she] wants to do.” If the guardian supports her decision, Ziegler said, it is not clear why the case went into the bypass process. “It’s also kind of surprising because denials aren’t that common,” Ziegler said. How hard is it to get a court-approved abortion? For a teenager, he dropped in the GPA. The trial court’s decision raises other questions. Determining a petitioner’s maturity is ultimately up to the judge’s discretion, though they usually follow a pattern, according to Jeri Beth Cohen, a retired child custody judge in Miami-Dade County. Cohen, who has heard cases of judicial overreach during her time on the bench, said she would ask petitioners if they had talked to trusted adults about their situation, if they went to school or worked, who they lived with, if they understood the basics abortion procedure and why they felt it was not right to continue their pregnancy. Judges, Cohen said, also look at “maturity, or”: Is the minor mature or in a situation where the consent of a parent or guardian would be dangerous or disadvantageous, such as a case where the minor was abused by his or her guardian ? “The dissent seemed to show very clearly that he was questioned at length and seemed to show maturity, so that should be the end of it,” Cohen said. “Once you get those determinations, you pretty much have to administer it [the bypass].” Cohen also noted that in cases where there is a consenting parent or guardian, a signed and notarized waiver must be sent to the abortion provider within 30 days of the procedure — and that no such form appears to be attached to the girl’s application. “It is not enough to simply state that the guardian has no objection. That’s probably why the clinic sent her for judicial bypass,” Cohen said. A guardian ad litem (GAL) appointed by the court to represent a minor cannot give that consent, only legal guardians or parents, he said. Makar, of the appeals court, partially agreed with Justices Harvey Jay and Rachel Nordby in their decision, but wrote that the case should be sent back to the lower court for possible reevaluation. His partially dissenting opinion offers a rare window into the case. In it, he wrote that Frydrychowicz “demonstrated concern for the minor’s predicament throughout the hearing. asked the minor difficult questions about sensitive personal matters in a compassionate manner.” The hearing was held in the courtroom, with the teenager’s case worker and a guardian ad litem attending with her. Makar said that based on a transcript, the teenager “was aware of the relevant considerations for terminating her pregnancy” and had looked through a brochure and Googled for more information about her options and possible consequences. her. “The trial court noted that the minor ‘recognizes that she is not ready for the emotional, physical or financial responsibility of raising a child’ and ‘has reasonable concerns about her ability to raise a child,’” it continued. In denying the petition, Makar wrote, Frydrychowicz left open the possibility of additional proceedings, saying the girl could “sufficiently articulate” her request later and that the court could reconsider its decision. The key factor appeared to be Frydrychowicz’s initial concern that the teenager’s assessment of the benefits and consequences of her decision was “willful”. “Reading between the lines, it appears that the court wanted to give the minor, who was under additional stress due to the death of a friend, additional time to express a deeper understanding of the consequences of terminating a pregnancy,” Makar wrote. “This makes sense given that the minor, at least at one point, says she was open to having a child, but later changed her mind after considering her inability to care for a child in her current position in life.” Due to time considerations, he said he would have referred the case back to Frydrychowicz’s court for reconsideration. Like Ziegler, Makar also questioned why the case ended up in a judicial bypass if the teen’s guardian was, as the teen wrote in her petition, supportive of her decision. He wrote: “If the minor’s guardian consents to the termination of the minor’s pregnancy, all that is required is a written waiver by the guardian.” The teenager also “inexplicably checked the box indicating she did not request an attorney,” despite her right to appoint an attorney at no cost, Makar wrote. Cohen, the retired child welfare judge, said the petitioner’s uncertainty about abortion is not a relevant criterion. “There’s no reason for him to say, ‘Well, if it’s wavering, don’t give it.’ The ground is for her to grant it, if she is mature enough to make the decision,” Cohen said. “Just because you grant the waiver, doesn’t mean he has to get it [an abortion]. Give it, and if he changes his mind, he changes his mind.” With Florida’s relatively short 15-week abortion window (states with less restrictions tend to allow abortions up to 22 or 24 weeks’ gestation), denying the girl’s application but leaving the door open for a possible review and try again can end up being too late. enough to where it would be outside the state’s legal window. Any delay, Cohen notes, limits the petitioner’s options. At 10 weeks, for example, the girl could have a medical abortion, which is less expensive and invasive than a surgical abortion, which she might need if she has to wait longer. “It’s very traumatic to be rejected and have to go back. And it’s very expensive,” Cohen said. “What he can afford today, he may not be able to afford tomorrow.”
