In re Complaint of Doe ( 2024 )

[Cite as In re Complaint of Doe, 2024-Ohio-2140.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
:
In re Complaint of Jane Doe, :
No. 24AP-217
Jane Doe, Appellant. : (C.P.C. No. 24JA-03-02)
: (ACCELERATED CALENDAR)
:
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on June 4, 2024
On brief: Trudy D. Farrar, for appellant. Argued: Trudy D.
Farrar.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas,
Division of Domestic Relations, Juvenile Branch
PER CURIAM.
{¶ 1} The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic
Relations, Juvenile Branch (“juvenile court”) dismissed the complaint of appellant, Jane
Doe, a minor, seeking a judicial bypass order authorizing her to consent to an abortion
under R.C. 2151.85. Jane Doe appealed. For the following reasons, we reversed the juvenile
court judgment and issued the order.
{¶ 2} On March 26, 2024, Jane Doe filed a complaint under R.C. 2151.85, which
allows an unmarried, pregnant minor to request “the issuance of an order authorizing her
to consent to the performance or inducement of an abortion without the notification of her
parents, guardian, or custodian.” The juvenile court held a hearing on her request the same
day. Jane Doe, her attorney, and an advocate for Jane Doe from the Ohio Abortion Fund
appeared.
{¶ 3} Jane Doe testified that she was a resident of Franklin County. (Mar. 26, 2014
Tr. at 5.) She did not live with her parents and was in the custody of Franklin County
No. 24AP-217 2
Children Services (“FCCS”), living in a group home. Id. at 5-6. She stated that she was in
contact with her parents and had discussed her desire to have an abortion with them. Id.
at 6.
{¶ 4} Jane Doe affirmed that a physician had diagnosed her pregnancy and that
she had undertaken counseling concerning abortion. Id. She also affirmed that she had
been advised about the health risks involved in pregnancy and abortion, as well as
alternatives to abortion such as adoption. Id. at 6-7. She had been counseled on birth
control and affirmed that she would be able to access it and use it in the future. Id. at 10.
{¶ 5} Jane Doe stated that she was a few months away from her 18th birthday and
was attending high school, where she had “at least average” grades and participated in
extracurricular activities. Id. at 7-8. She expressed her desire to live independently after
high school graduation, but felt that she could not provide for or be responsible for a child
on her own. Id. at 8-9. She stated that the father could not be responsible for a child either.
Id. at 9.
{¶ 6} The juvenile court also heard testimony from Morgan Mitchell, a Legal Access
Fellow from the Ohio Abortion Fund. Ms. Mitchell testified that Jane Doe’s mother “was
no longer supportive of going to the appointment with the minor” and “did not want to be
involved anymore.” Id. at 13.
{¶ 7} The juvenile court asked Jane Doe to confirm that her parents knew that she
wanted to have an abortion. Id. at 10-11. After she confirmed this, the court responded:
“Then I don’t know why we’re here.” Id. at 11. The court stated that it “specifically” had to
“find that no parent, guardian or custodian of the complainant has been notified that she is
seeking an abortion” before it could issue a bypass order. Id. at 14. Because Jane Doe had
told her mother that she wished to have an abortion, the court concluded that it did not
“have jurisdiction.” Id.
{¶ 8} Jane Doe’s attorney argued that the parents’ “failure to follow through” with
supporting her decision to have an abortion meant that she needed the court to issue the
order for judicial bypass. Id. at 17. Nevertheless, the juvenile court concluded that it could
not “grant the [request] at this time” because it had to “find certain things” before it could
issue the order. Id. at 17-18. First, it had to find “that the child is * * * an unemancipated
minor. The second, the Court must find [that] the [complainant is] pregnant and she
wishes to have an abortion * * *.” Id. at 18. The “third” finding that the juvenile court stated
No. 24AP-217 3
that it had to make was that “no parent, guardian, or * * * custodian of the complainant has
been notified that she is seeking an abortion.” Id. The juvenile court dismissed the
testimony of Ms. Mitchell as “hearsay evidence” and pointed out that “there was no
testimony that the child was presented for an abortion and that the parents did not show
up.” Id.
{¶ 9} The juvenile court then addressed “several things” Jane Doe had testified to
as part of her burden to show by “clear and convincing evidence” that she was “of proper
maturity to make this decision,” calling them as “very light as well.” Id. at 18-19. Describing
Jane Doe as her attorney’s “ward,” the court stated that she “could not testify as to what the
alternatives were until you fed her the answer. Did you consider an adoption?” Id. at 19.
The juvenile court criticized Jane Doe for not describing “the possible outcomes of an
abortion” when asked and failing to reply such outcomes might include that “she [might]
not have a child again, [or] possible death.” Id. The juvenile court concluded that it could
not issue the order “unless she fully understands the consequences and the risks involved,”
but Jane Doe had not “articulated that here today in front of the Court. Those are the
several reasons why I cannot grant this petition today.” Id. Accordingly, the juvenile court
dismissed the complaint. (Mar. 26, 2024 Jgmt.)
{¶ 10} Jane Doe exercised her right of an immediate appeal under R.C. 2505.073.
In her brief, she argued that the juvenile court made four erroneous findings, which we
construed as four assignments of error, all asserting that the juvenile court erred when
dismissing her petition. On March 29, 2024, after oral argument, we sustained the
assignments of error and granted Jane Doe’s request for an order under R.C. 2151.85,
without remand to the juvenile court.
{¶ 11} We typically review a juvenile court’s denial of a complaint seeking judicial
bypass of parental consent for an abortion under an abuse of discretion standard. In re
Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135 (1990), syllabus. An unreasonable, arbitrary, or
unconscionable ruling is an abuse of discretion. E.g., Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio
St.3d 217, 219 (1983). “An unreasonable decision is one that is unsupported by a sound
reasoning process.” Lias v. Beekman, 10th Dist. No. 06AP-1134, 2007-Ohio-5737, ¶ 12,
citing AAAA Ents. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d
157, 161 (1990). An arbitrary ruling lacks an “ ‘adequate determining principle’ ” and is
“ ‘not governed by any fixed rules or standard.’ ” Downey v. 610 Morrison Rd., LLC, 10th
No. 24AP-217 4
Dist. No. 07AP-903, 2008-Ohio-3524, ¶ 11, quoting Dayton ex rel. Scandrick v. McGee, 67
Ohio St.2d 356, 359 (1981). An unconscionable decision “ ‘affront[s] the sense of justice,
decency, or reasonableness.’ ” U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Collier, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-207,
2008-Ohio-6817, ¶ 19, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8th Ed.2004). In addition, “a court
abuses its discretion when its ruling is based on an error of law or a misapplication of law
to the facts.” Harris v. Cunix, 10th Dist. No. 21AP-13, 2022-Ohio-839, ¶ 9.
{¶ 12} R.C. 2151.85 governs the procedure for obtaining a judicial bypass order from
the juvenile court. See also R.C. 2919.121(C) (providing a similar procedure for granting
“[t]he right of a minor to consent to an abortion”) and In re Doe, 2d Dist. No. 02CA0067,
2002-Ohio-6081, ¶ 2 (describing R.C. 2151.85 and R.C. 2919.121(C) as “parallel
provisions”). A minor must file a complaint stating that she is pregnant, that she is an
unemancipated and unmarried minor, and that she “wishes to have an abortion without
the notification of her parents” or legal guardian. R.C. 2151.85(A). In addition, the
complaint must allege either or both of the following:
(a) That the complainant is sufficiently mature and well
enough informed to intelligently decide whether to have an
abortion without the notification of her parents, guardian, or
custodian;
(b) That one or both of her parents, her guardian, or her
custodian was engaged in a pattern of physical, sexual, or
emotional abuse against her, or that the notification of her
parents, guardian, or custodian otherwise is not in her best
interest.
R.C. 2151.85(A)(4).
{¶ 13} The juvenile court must hold a hearing on the complaint within five days.
R.C. 2151.85(B)(1). If the “complainant makes only the allegation set forth in division
(A)(4)(a),” as is the case here, and “the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that
the complainant is sufficiently mature and well enough informed to decide intelligently
whether to have an abortion, the court shall issue an order authorizing the complainant to
consent to the performance or inducement of an abortion without the notification of her
parents, guardian, or custodian.” R.C. 2151.85(C)(1).
{¶ 14} The juvenile court first erred by ruling it lacked “jurisdiction” in this case. In
its most general sense, jurisdiction refers to a court’s “statutory or constitutional power to
No. 24AP-217 5
adjudicate the case” before it. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83,
89 (1998). In spite of its professed lack of jurisdiction, which by definition meant that it
lacked the power to adjudicate Jane Doe’s complaint, the juvenile court went on to do just
that. This suggests that the juvenile court misunderstood the term. “The general term
‘jurisdiction’ can be used to connote several distinct concepts, including jurisdiction over
the subject matter, jurisdiction over the person, and jurisdiction over a particular case.”
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75, 2014-Ohio-4275, ¶ 18, citing Pratts v.
Hurley, 102 Ohio St.3d 81, 2004-Ohio-1980, ¶ 11-12. The juvenile court did not lack subject
matter jurisdiction. The statute specifically identifies “the juvenile court of the county in
which” the minor resides as the proper venue for filing the complaint seeking a judicial
bypass order and grants that court the power to issue the order. R.C. 2151.85(A); R.C.
2151.85(C)(1) (stating that the juvenile court “shall issue an order authorizing the
complainant to consent to the performance or inducement of an abortion without the
notification of her parents, guardian, or custodian” if criteria met). The juvenile court’s
personal jurisdiction over Jane Doe is incontrovertible because she “submitted to the
court’s jurisdiction by filing the complaint.” Moore v. Mt. Carmel Health Sys., 162 Ohio
St.3d 106, 2020-Ohio-4113, ¶ 34.
{¶ 15} The juvenile court’s reasoning suggests that Jane Doe’s failure to satisfy
several requirements that the court incorrectly believed were prerequisites to granting the
relief resulted in a lack of jurisdiction over this “particular case.” Kucha at ¶ 18. For
example, the juvenile court believed that it could not issue the bypass order because Jane
Doe had informed her mother that she wanted an abortion. However, the statute contains
no jurisdiction-stripping provision that applies if a complainant informs a parent or
guardian. The only such provision in either of Ohio’s judicial bypass statutes is in R.C.
2919.121(C)(4): “No juvenile court shall have jurisdiction to rehear a petition concerning
the same pregnancy once a juvenile court has granted or denied the petition.” Nothing in
the record indicates that Jane Doe had filed a successive petition.
{¶ 16} The juvenile court also stated that it “specifically” had to “find that no parent,
guardian or custodian of the complainant has been notified that she is seeking an abortion”
as a condition of issuing the bypass order. (Tr. at 14.) But the statute contains no such
requirement. The statute required Jane Doe to state in her complaint that she “wishe[d] to
have an abortion without the notification of her parents” or legal guardian. R.C. 2151.85(A).
No. 24AP-217 6
Whether or not she actually did so is not part of the standard for decision-making when
issuing a bypass order. A juvenile court’s only task is to determine whether the evidence
clearly and convincingly shows “that the complainant is sufficiently mature and well
enough informed to decide intelligently whether to have an abortion,” and if so, “the court
shall issue an order authorizing the complainant to consent to the performance or
inducement of an abortion without the notification of her parents, guardian, or custodian.”
R.C. 2151.85(C)(1). Here, however, the juvenile court redrafted this standard to require the
complainant to clearly and convincingly show not only her maturity, but that she did not
notify her parents, guardian, or custodian of her intent.
{¶ 17} In any case, the notification and consent of Jane Doe’s mother was irrelevant
to the judicial bypass request. Jane Doe was in the legal custody of FCCS, and the statute
required her to state that she “wishes to have an abortion without the notification of her
parents, guardian, or custodian.” R.C. 2151.85(A)(3). Lack of notification of any one of the
three would satisfy the pleading requirement, and there was nothing to indicate that FCCS
had been notified of Jane Doe’s intent. Thus, the juvenile court incorrectly concluded that
she had not met the requirement it imposed on her.
{¶ 18} The Supreme Court of Ohio has rejected the suggestion that any standard
apart from that stated in R.C. 2151.85 should guide a juvenile court when considering a
judicial bypass request. In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135, 138 (1990) (rejecting the
suggestion that it adopt “what is essentially a six-factor test for juvenile courts to weigh as
factors that are ‘indicative of a minor’s maturity or competence to give informed consent’ ”).
See also In re Complaint of Doe, 83 Ohio App.3d 98, 101-02 (10th Dist.1993) (stating that
“it would be improper” to add requirements to those required by the statute “in light of the
Supreme Court’s decision in In re Jane Doe 1”). Nevertheless, the juvenile court imposed
a requirement that Jane Doe show up for an appointment without a parent and be refused
an abortion before it could issue a bypass order. This is apparent because one of its stated
reasons for refusing Jane Doe’s request was that “there was no testimony that the child was
presented [sic] for an abortion and that the parents did not show up.” (Tr. at 18.)
{¶ 19} There is no basis in the statute for imposing such a requirement on the minor.
In Ohio, a pregnant, unemancipated minor cannot obtain an abortion unless “[t]he
attending physician has secured the informed written consent of the minor and one parent,
guardian, or custodian,” or the court provides authorization. R.C. 2919.121(B)(1). To insist
No. 24AP-217 7
that a minor undergo the ordeal of showing up alone for an appointment and be
affirmatively refused care before she can seek a judicial bypass order is an unreasonable
burden that is at odds with not only the language of the statute, but also with Jane Doe’s
right “to make and carry out [her] own reproductive decisions” under the Ohio
Constitution. Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 22.A & Section 22.B (stating that “[t]he
State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or
discriminate against * * * [a]n individual’s voluntary exercise of this right”). This arbitrary
requirement lacked an “adequate determining principle” and was “not governed by any
fixed rules or standard.” Downey, 2008-Ohio-3524, at ¶ 11. It was also unconscionable
because it “affront[ed] the sense of justice, decency, or reasonableness.” Collier, 2008-
Ohio-6817, ¶ 19. For this and the other reasons discussed, we conclude that the entirety of
the juvenile court’s discussion was “unsupported by a sound reasoning process.” Lias,
2007-Ohio-5737, at ¶ 12. Thus, the juvenile court abused its discretion by dismissing Jane
Doe’s complaint on the stated grounds.
{¶ 20} Our review of the record shows that Jane Doe clearly and convincingly
demonstrated that she was “sufficiently mature and well enough informed to decide
intelligently whether to have an abortion,” and was therefore entitled to have the bypass
order issued. R.C. 2151.85(C)(1). Jane Doe testified that she was months away from her
eighteenth birthday, and we have previously held that proximity to the age of maturity
weighs heavily in a complainant’s favor when determining maturity. In re Doe, 10th Dist.
No. 03AP-1185, 2003-Ohio-6509, ¶ 8 (finding it “to be of particular significance the fact
that appellant will be 18 and would have been able to have an abortion without notifying
her parents within the next month”). The juvenile court made no mention of her age, but
we believe it is a “critically important factor” in evaluating maturity. In re Doe, 7th Dist.
No. 11 CO 34, 2011-Ohio-6373, ¶ 12 (describing weight given to fact of complainant’s
proximity to 18th birthday). See also In re Doe, 2d Dist. No. 02CA0067, 2002-Ohio-6081,
¶ 14 (reversing juvenile court’s dismissal of R.C. 2151.85 complaint and stating that
“maturity is generally viewed to increase with age”).
{¶ 21} Jane Doe testified that she had consulted with a physician and had undergone
counseling, that she knew of the health risks and alternatives, and that she was going to use
birth control in the future. All of these facts demonstrate a degree of maturity that is
consonant with granting her request, and in fact surpasses the efforts of others seeking
No. 24AP-217 8
judicial bypass. See id at ¶ 13 (stating that it was “unreasonable” for the juvenile court “to
find that she is not well enough informed about abortion” because the complainant had not
yet spoken with a physician before filing the complaint, although she had sought
information from other sources). Jane Doe also demonstrated maturity by facing the
economic reality of pregnancy, admitting that neither she nor the father could provide for
a baby. Jane Doe’s proximity to adulthood, her efforts to educate herself about the
procedure and consult with a physician, her resolve to use birth control in the future, and
honesty about her situation all clearly and convincingly demonstrate that she is “sufficiently
mature and well enough informed to decide intelligently whether to have an abortion,” as
required by R.C. 2151.85(C)(1).
{¶ 22} For the foregoing reasons, the juvenile court abused its discretion when
dismissing Jane Doe’s complaint under R.C. 2151.85. Accordingly, we reverse the decision
of the juvenile court and, for the reasons stated, issued the order she sought.
The following notice is provided in accordance with Sup.R.
25(G):
If appellant believes that this opinion may disclose her identity,
appellant has a right to appear and argue at a hearing before
this court. Appellant may perfect this right to a hearing by filing
a motion for a hearing within fourteen days of the date of this
opinion.
The clerk is instructed that this opinion is not to be made
available for release until either of the following:
• Twenty-one days have passed since the date of the
opinion and appellant has not filed a motion;
• If appellant has filed a motion, after this court has ruled
on the motion.
Judgment reversed.
MENTEL, P.J., EDELSTEIN, J., and LELAND, J., concur.
_________________