Pregnant Teen Wins Abortion Battle

[davidn3600]

Source: ABC News and Yahoo

A pregnant teen who sued her parents, claiming they were coercing her to have an abortion, will be able to give birth to her baby.

Attorneys representing the 16-year-old girl were granted a long-term injunction against the girl's parents in Texas family court on Monday, according to court documents.

The teen is 10 weeks pregnant and the injunction will last for the duration of her pregnancy.

As part of the order, the girl will be able to use her car to go to school, work and medical appointments. Her parents had taken away the use of the car as part of their effort to force an abortion, court papers stated.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-teen-wins-abortion-battle-150554993--abc-news-topstories.html

[annabanana]

1. (her choice)

As it should be.

[HockeyMom]

2. Yes, BUT

her parents should not be under any obligation once she gives birth. She is then free to adopt it out, or move out and raise it on her own, and go on welfare?

[annabanana]

4. I guess that will have to be

their choice.

[Tumbulu]

6. agree, or to pay for the health costs

but what happens is that the parents mostly do this all this stuff, and then get stuck with raising a grandchild or a few of them while their kids goes off being wild. I am sorry, I am sick of the glorification of birth married to a complete absence of responsibility.

[TEXASYANKEE]

10. Agreed.

"I am sick of the glorification of birth married to a complete absence of responsibility." I could not agree more. A friend's 18-year old daughter just got pregnant. Why? Not because she's madly in love or it was an accident, she simply wanted a baby. It boggles the mind.

[HockeyMom]

11. At 18 she's legally an adult

and her parents have no responsibility at all to her, or her baby.

[Tumbulu]

14. Oh right, like parents are not going to feel that they have to step in and help?

Until someone has a baby, they have NO IDEA! And a fair amount of people with children seem to behave as though it is "no big deal" either. But it IS.

There has been a cultural shift and there is an ever growing schism between the parents who are active in their children's lives in a positive way and those that neglect or hurt their children and the schism is creating two very different societies.

[HockeyMom]

27. Then call me guilty

because I would never do it. I AM a mother. There is a point when your children must fend for themselves as adults. You are just being an Enabler if you take in a pregnant daughter, support her, and her baby. Every hear of tough love?

Choice is a double edged sword. Yes, choice includes having that baby, but then the "child" has to live with the consequences of the aftermath of that. They will never become responsible adults if you as a parents as still taking them by the hand when they are adults.

BTW, I am the mother of 2 daughters. Call me a BAD mother then. MY choice.

[Drale]

61. I complete agree

My girlfriends Uncle gave his daughter (how lives in another state by her choice living with her asshole baby daddy) anything she wanted and turned her into a selfish terrible person. He passed away last week and even from beyond the grave he is still enabling her. He made her is sole beneficiary of his life insurance policy and bank accounts even though she had 2 older brothers, one of whom took care of him from the minute he got sick and she visited once and only showed up when she though he was dieing. He also did not have a will and now she thinks she is entitled to everything he owned. He enabled her and gave her everything she ever wanted and if her father had not enabled her she would probably not be the asshole she is today.

[demwing]

81. That's just punishing the grandchild

to prove what a "tough love" kind of mom you can be..and that's your choice.

[HockeyMom]

85. Adoption

THAT is the best choice. Again, I cannot understand what a fixation you people have about grandchilden, or children for that matter.

[uppityperson]

90. You didn't tell us you know the people involved. Since you know "THAT is the best choice", I must

assume you do.

[Exultant Democracy]

145. You don't understand why a grandparent would want to have their grandchildren around?

Rolling the dice on an adoption doesn't seem like tough love for the grandchild is seems like no love at all to someone that didn't ask for the shit hand they were born into.

[Tumbulu]

161. Hands down best choice

But my guess is that the mom will be romances into keeping the baby...and then at around a few years of age it will be taken from her. Have seen it happen too many times.

[MADem]

204. "You people?" Ouch!!!!!!!! nt

[AlbertCat]

96. That's just punishing the grandchild

Not if the mother does a great job.... on her own.

[demwing]

156. Yes, correct

but that's not what the OP was referring to.

The quote: " You are just being an Enabler if you take in a pregnant daughter, support her, and her baby. Every hear of tough love?"

[AlbertCat]

207. but that's not what the OP was referring to.

Well, obviously I was referring to the quote:

"That's just punishing the grandchild"

not the one you quoted.

[demwing]

217. My quote was in response to her quote

So if you refer to my quote, you should take it in the context under which it was written, right?

[Tumbulu]

136. Exactly nt

[Tumbulu]

137. Well goody goody for you

I know six people raising grandchildren in all cases the choice was that they took them or they went to an over challenged foster care program. In all cases the kids were also drug addicted at birth and the children had been removed from their birth parents by either law enforcement or CPS. It is a huge problem and it is not about doing it FOR their child but about taking care of grandchildren.

[leftyohiolib]

151. if we're celebrating choice then no one should call you anything

[riderinthestorm]

53. Her parents are legally responsible for her (and her troubles) til she's 18 yrs old

They have no choice on this - they are legally responsible.

[avebury]

82. The parents were not wrong to make the girl

get a job. If she wants to have a child then she is going to have to support it. If they want to assist her, give her cloth diapers which will be better for the environment in the long run and she can learn to clean them. When the time comes, buy her a food processor and let her make her own baby food (which in the long run is cheaper then buying all those little jars of baby food and better for the environment).

If they want to assist her, they can choose not to do so with cash. They can find a small studio apartment and pay the rent and utilities until she is 18. They do not have to provide her with a phone, cable, internet, TV, computer, cell phone, and any other electronic toys. The do not have to provide her with child daycare for the baby. My sister got pregnant in her last year of high school which crushed my Dad. She did marry her boyfriend and they are still together more then 40 years later. My parents helped them with college and just the basics of life - no frills. They did just fine. Baby #2 came 1 year later. It took my sister 10 years but she finally got her college degree.

The girl needs to prove to everyone that she is responsible. She played and now she has to pay the proverbial piper. Regarding the car, if the girl did not buy the car why should she have a right to it? Using a car that you do not own is a privilege not a right. I have no problem with the parents taking away her cell phone if they were the ones paying the bill. Unless she wanted to pay the bill, the cell phone was a privilege not a right.

[riderinthestorm]

87. They have to pay her medical bills, house her, clothe her and feed her

They also are responsible for any legal problems she has.

But you are absolutely correct, that can all be the bare minimum, no frills.

I was simply responding to those who said that these parents shouldn't have to "pay" for this girl since she made her own choice, she should be on her own.

Its not that simple.

I'm guessing the legal agency that fought for the girl will similarly punitively punish the parents if they don't adhere to their legal responsibilities to the girl. They may just drop it now that they've won - most girls don't know exactly what their parents are responsible for (or not responsible) while they are still minors. Most girls get kicked out and the bad blood is so awful they leave without recourse.

It sucks all around. That poor baby! Pretty hostile environment to be born into. Hope the grandparents are willing to stand by this girl and their great grand child. What a mess.

Glad to hear the happy ending for your sister!

[avebury]

94. I would like to know why the parents of the boy are not legally

liable for some of the girl's expenses - doctor's appointments, pre-natal costs, and so on. After all, she did not get pregnant by herself.

The parents need to be making sure that the boy and his parents will be legally liable for child support.

In Oklahoma you are required to maintain car insurance. I don't know if Texas has a comparable law. The parents could consider transferring the title to the girl and then cutting off the car insurance. Let the girl pay for the car insurance. They would be in compliance with the court order by letting the girl have the car. The court order does not require them to insure the vehicle.

[AlbertCat]

97. why the parents of the boy are not legally liable for some of the girl's expenses

BINGO!

Let's hope someone brings this up in court.

[riderinthestorm]

105. I'm presuming they are responsible for the other half of medical costs

that the parent's are NOT paying.

[riderinthestorm]

98. I'm going to guess that's why they were only ordered to pay half medical

I'm guessing the boy's family is responsible for the other half.

I like your car suggestion in your last paragraph. The clear gift of a car is supportive but the requirement that she is responsible for its costs and maintenance ensures she puts her shoulder to the grindstone, and begins to grow up and take on some responsibility as well.

[Tumbulu]

163. You keep making such good points!

It is always the girl and her family it seems.

[elehhhhna]

113. very tho0ughtful response, with which I concur

[Tumbulu]

139. A teenager has no idea

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 10:55 PM - Edit history (1)

And it is the unborn fetus who gets the brunt of these " punishments" which is how a kid nowadays would see this. No phone all alone in a studio apt? With a newborn crying all night?

It is all too punitive sounding. Either have a baby and take the best care of baby and mom, or don't have one. Or give the baby to people who will care for it.

[avebury]

148. The girl does not need a cell phone

when a land line will do just fine. Babies do cry and cry often. Mothers have been surviving newborn children for centuries, long before the advent of phones/cars/TVs/Computers. The time has come for reality to sink in. A baby is not an accessory nor a toy. It is a sentient being that will require round a clock care for many years. If she chooses to keep the baby, her childhood is over and she will need to grow up and grow up fast. Adoption might not look so bad after awhile. Coddling is the last thing that she needs and will not help her in the long run. She also does not have the right to dump the baby on her parents or grandparents so that she go out and act like a teenager, she lost that right as soon as she got pregnant and decided to keep the baby. The universe no longer revolves around the girl.

Edit to add: I am pretty hard core in my reaction because my former step-son (of legal age) was dating this young girl (of legal age) and practically moved the girl into our house. She was around all the time. I did not find out until I came home from a brief trip that this girl, in fact, had a young child (less then 2 years old). My neighbor told me that the girl had brought her daughter over while I was out of town. My first thought was - who on earth was looking after that child all those hours that the mother was at my house? I as also aware that she had a pending drug charge (I found the document in my house - it was my house I reserve the right to snoop!). I called DHS and told them all about girl and asked them to look into things to make sure that the child was ok since I had no idea who was taking care of her most of the time. The state ended up taking the child away from the girl. This same step-son wanted her to get pregnant so that they could have a child together. The step-son is a whole other story. This kid was not even capable of taking care of himself forget having a child. And his girlfriend was more interested in running around then staying home and taking care of the child that she already had.

[Tumbulu]

154. Oh, I was thinking you were saying no phone..

I forgot about land lines, as they are sometimes more expensive to set up than just keeping a cheap cell.

I have observed way too may situations where the CPS takes the child away from the irresponsible child mother and then the grandparents have to raise the child. These kids just leave the babies unattended and the romanticizing of "making a baby together" is just another side of the same idea (that the forced birthers spew) that it is all about producing the baby and then - all the real work of raising the baby is ignored or dumped on someone else.

Our culture is encouraging teenagers to take longer and longer to mature and having a baby while still under parental care is crazy. Period. Unless the child and the parents are on board.

[avebury]

171. The parents might be able to get her a cheap cell phone and provide

her with 200 minute card to put on it monthly. If she overshoots the 200 minutes she would have to be personally responsible for buying additional minutes. That would provide her with a means of communication while making her responsible for how she uses her minutes. If blows her minutes chit chatting with her girlfriends and then has no minutes to call, for example, the doctor for the baby then it is her fault not her parents. And I definitely would make it a very basic, no frills phone. No ability to text, get on the internet, etc. She would wipe out her minutes in no time.

The whole purpose of a small apartment is to position her to have to become responsible. If she just lives with her grandparents or parents it becomes to easy to dump the baby on someone else to go out with your friends. When my sister had two children before she was 19, my parents helped make sure that they had the necessities. They lived with my sister's mother-in-law (my sister told my parents that she was a lot more fun the my parents). My sister changed her tune after living with her mother-in-law for a while. While the lady was nice, she was kind of a fruitcake. And my mother was willing to help my sister by watching her children so that my sister attend her college classes. Her equally young husband was working and going to college as well. Trust me, neither of them were running around partying. They became full time parents and had to develop the skills to succeed in life and they did. Both their kids turned out really well.

[Tumbulu]

172. I see the young people of today as so much more irresponsible

than people were 30 years ago.

I know so many people my age raising grandchildren, and it is awful. Perhaps it is more concentrated in rural areas. But it is really a terrible way for the children to grow up. Bio mom in and out of life, elderly people trying to care for toddlers and then kids and oh my........

[MADem]

206. Why rent an apartment? Why not just keep her at home?

Why pay all those bills, and leave the child-mother in a position where mischief making is made simpler?

Keep the child and her child at home, that way, in the event of a medical emergency, there's a phone to call an ambulance available.

[riderinthestorm]

109. That's not true from what I've read. Do you have a link?

"You will be emancipated in any of the ways: Marriage, court ordered, turn 18 or join the armed services. Mainly teenage parents find this to be true, but it isnt. You are still responsible for your child, but until you are emancipated you are still under control of your parents. The reason being in Texas you can not enter legal contracts until the age of 18... examples: leases, owning cars/ house, opening lines of credit."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_a_minor_emancipated_in_Texas_when_they_have_a_child

[McCamy Taylor]

122. Not sure any law requires them to pay for her phone or car. Just her food and lodging and health.

[riderinthestorm]

123. Oh agreed. They also have to give her clothing. The car thing is weird.

Its interesting they are making the parents support her with the car.

I like the suggestion upthread that they simply gift her the car. Then the girl has to pay for it. Its both a supportive action (the gift) but the responsibility of a car is heavy duty (which may be what this girl needs at the moment).

[obamanut2012]

127. Exactly -- Unless she becomes emancipated

[Blue4Texas]

129. And why I think parents should make the abortion decision

until kids are 18

[loudsue]

70. Or you can be 100% trying to help and teach your kids, and they just don't give a damn.

They are convinced there is no harm in doing as they please. You never know until you have a child that you just can't seem to reach, to help, or to work with.

[riderinthestorm]

78. +1. nt

[MADem]

203. This child is but sixteen.

I wonder who pays the note on her car, the gas that goes in it, and the insurance? Does she have a part-time job?

That said, I'm betting the child could make some hay, easily, with this situation.

A Right To Life outfit could hire her as a speaker, she could go on the road with them, and do a finger-wagging show, slamming her parents, at churches where the hat is passed and the "take" is split. The infant, if sufficiently cute, could be used to increase the total amount raised. After all, baby needs a new pair of shoes!

She'd have to first go to court and get an emancipation order, though, or tough it out until she reaches eighteen.

[Tumbulu]

16. Yes, it boggles my mind

I see so many children of meth parents with the tired grandparents trying to raise the children. It is really awful.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

35. I am sick of the glorification of birth married to a complete absence of responsibility.

Absolutely agree with you.

[smirkymonkey]

141. +1000

If she is not going to accept 100% for the care of the child, she has no right to force it on her parents.

[Tumbulu]

158. agree 100%

[Tumbulu]

157. Thanks nt

[freshwest]

168. +1.

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:54 PM - Edit history (1)

[muriel_volestrangler]

185. Fifth pregnancy? By the time she's 16?

Or was that sarcasm of some sort?

[freshwest]

196. No, I only do sarcasm for Republicans, not real people or DUers.

Last edited Wed Feb 20, 2013, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)

[muriel_volestrangler]

201. I think that's the girl's mother who'd had 4 abortions

According to court documents, the girl’s mother has undergone four abortions herself and has allegedly threatened to secretly slip her daughter an abortion pill.

http://blog.chron.com/newswatch/2013/02/houston-area-teen-sues-parents-to-avoid-abortion-pressure/

4 abortions by the time someone is 16 would indicate a fundamental failure of parenting, common sense and contraception, all round.

[MADem]

208. I agree--that would be way past grounds for a visit from Child Protective Services or a

similar agency.

I think the parents should have gotten this girl some professional counselling, but not pushed her towards abortion. I get the sense the child was not given a choice, but an order--I admit I don't know the deep dark details, but that's kind of how it smells to me. Far better to just have someone--someone neutral, pleasant, and reassuring-- explain the realities to her--if you choose an abortion, this is what will happen; if you choose to bring the fetus to term, this is the long list of your responsibilities (and don't get the idea that you can rely on your parents for help) for the next eighteen years.

A sixteen year old will ALWAYS go left if the parents say go right. It's in the nature of the beast. If you guide them towards a choice, it needs to be with a very light hand. I don't think that's what happened in this case.

Who suffers? That infant. More babies raising babies...before too long, that Idiocracy movie will come to pass!

[freshwest]

210. Thanks, I'll edit. I was going by a post, not the original article. I defer to the court documents.

Someone else had commented that the girl was the one with abortions, so we both mistook. I'll edit all of that to eliminate the misinformation.

I'm trying to get a feel for the culture there, how much control over these children's after school activities and time the parents may have had. I haven't been out to Hockley in a lifetime, but I'm sure it's no longer the rural area I remember.

The parents' actions as described in that article are out of control - but not because they 'want the innocent unborn dead' or whatever some would paint this as being sinister people. They have to be frustrated that these children are doing adult acts with life-long consequences. Something they did not want them to do and are now being coerced into supporting - it may be a humilation for them to have to do so.

The two minors involved, are acting out of control and irresponsibly. The law is forcing the parents as their parents and as adults, to take responsibility for what the wayward children are doing and that is exactly how laws often read. If their children had stolen something or assaulted someone, they would be called to court to pay for damages. They are going to be forced to support the girl and boy, in effect for the rest of their lives.

[wisteria]

39. Absolutely.

Iam soooo tired of hearing about "baby bumps" and Pregnant at Sixteen.

[Tumbulu]

12. And WHY do her parents have to pay HALF

of the costs of giving birth? Again- idiotic and unfair!

What are the parents of the fetus responsible for? And what about the 16 yr old father......

[leftynyc]

17. She's under 18

and they are still legally responsible for her. Where is she going to get the other half? From that group that funded her lawsuit?

[Tumbulu]

23. So this group should pay for the whole thing

if the parents are obligated to pay the bill, then they should be allowed some say in the matter. If they have no say, there should be no financial obligation.

What an outrageously bratty child, why are her parents obligated to provide a car? They could drive her to the appointments? Let all the anti abortion people with all the time in the world to stand around harassing women at abortion clinics cough up the money and why don't they also be sure to pay for all the care that this child and her child will need.

Oh yeah I forgot, they only care about them before birth.

[davidn3600]

28. Fathers dont get a say either...yet are on the hook financially

Which way do you want it?

[wisteria]

43. True to a point, but the father had more to do with creating the pregnancy

than the parents.

[Tumbulu]

135. Well they at least had something to do with it

So, it seems apples and oranges to me.

[wisteria]

41. So true! n/t

[riderinthestorm]

51. Her parents are legally responsible for her (and her troubles) til she's 18 yrs old

They can not force her out legally, and they are responsible for housing, feeding and clothing her (and dealing with her troubles) til the girl is 18.

[Marrah_G]

74. She doesn't live with them anyway

[ScreamingMeemie]

225. Yes, because they, themselves, should hot have had to commit to any parental

responsibility upon giving birth to their daughter. Sorry, but they signed on for a job. Sometimes it is a tough job. It sickens me to see this attitude among (what I presume to be) parents on DU. We (typically) vow to help our spouses through good times and bad and yet we cannot do this for our kids.

It's a disgusting shame. Thank goodness my parents (who supported me through a pregnancy at 19) took the job more seriously than some parents here.

[The Flaming Red Head]

243. I agree but why didn't they get her some birth control

All my enlightened friends with daughters had them getting that doctor visit for birth control as early as 14 or 15 if there was even a chance. I had boys so we kept a drawer full of condoms in the front room. Help yourself no questions asked and it's still there.


The people who paid her court cost should have to pay child support.

Although I just can't see forcing a woman's choice either way.

[wisteria]

31. Yes, but the parents shouldn't be liable for hospital bills, her transportation etc.

Her choice should be her choice all the way. The parents shouldn't have to foot the bill for what she chose to do. And, isn't this case such a shame, instead of trying to come to a reasonable agreement out of court, the RTLers, have put a wedge between the parents and their child.

[riderinthestorm]

55. Oh yes her parents are legally responsible for her.

And her medical bills, legal troubles and all the rest. Until she's 18 or legally emancipated (which this girl isn't unless someone's heard differently).

[Tumbulu]

142. Excellent points nt

[TexasBushwhacker]

238. She is 16

When you become a parent, you sign up to be responsible for your child until they are at least 18. That includes being responsible for their medical, even when they make bad decisions. IMHO, the boy's parent should be responsible for the other half of the pregnancy related bills.

[alp227]

80. Do children really have "my body my choice"?

Or do parents have supreme authority with "my child, my rules"?

Would you defend a 16 year old boy who sued his parents for not letting him get tattoo or smoke cannabis?

[elehhhhna]

118. tough question. what if the plaintiff was 12? would DU still be whooping

about "her choice" like this is a big win?

Sucks alla way around.

[MADem]

211. Well, at that point the issue is rape, without the cover of "Romeo and Juliet" laws,

assuming the boyfriend is still sixteen. Even the TX R-J law doesn't excuse relations by a teen with someone who isn't yet a teen.

http://knowledgebase.findlaw.com/kb/2011/Sep/342093.html

That said, there are no winners here. A few minutes talking about birth control and going to the doctor for a prescription might have avoided this situation entirely.

[muriel_volestrangler]

186. We'd defend a 16 year old boy whose parents tried to force him to get a tattoo

or take drugs, or drink. Parents shouldn't be able to force their children to have unnecessary medical procedures against their will.

[alp227]

197. And who is the judge of when a medical procedure is necessary?

This lawsuit is of a girl suing her parents over pregnancy decision. Enough frivolous lawsuits by adults are clogging the legal system. Do you want a nation of rebellious kids using our courts to enable their disobedience?

My question was about what a child wants to do against parents objections. I wonder how many of the people here cheering the girl even have been parents.

[muriel_volestrangler]

199. A doctor is

There was no medical need for her to have the abortion.

"Do you want a nation of rebellious kids using our courts to enable their disobedience? "

To stop an unnecessary procedure being forced on her? Yes.

"My question was about what a child wants to do against parents objections." yes but you compared forcing an abortion to forbidding a tattoo, or forbidding smoking pot. A forced abortion would be an assault - probably sexual, and would be illegal. Withholding persmission for a tattoo is not illegal. Your question was badly put.

"I wonder how many of the people here cheering the girl even have been parents."

Who cares? Are you saying parents should have the right to force abortions on their 16 year old daughter, and that somehow beign a parent would make you support this force?

[alp227]

202. Looks like no decision is right at all.

Forcing abortion=bad
Keeping the baby= both lives ruined as mother loses education/economic independence and forces kid to grow up unlucky
Giving up baby for adoption= it may take YEARS to find a permanent home, and obviously the foster care system ain't the best place to raise a kid.

so I get why abortion is medically unnecessary. But should PARENTS not be the ultimate survey of what their children do?

[muriel_volestrangler]

205. No, her parents should not get the ultimate decision over her body

I disagree that "Keeping the baby= both lives ruined". It will be hard for her, but she has support from the boy, and his parents. And they expected it from her mother too, but that seems to come and go. Girls can manage to take time off to give birth, and then eventually complete high school, or get a GED.

[alp227]

209. So if parents can't have the ultimate decision, what's the point of parenthood then?

I have yet to see a good explanation why.

[muriel_volestrangler]

212. Parenthood doesn't mean complete control of a child

A parent can't, for instance, keep a child locked up permanently. Nor can they force cosmetic surgery on a child without their consent. The ultimate decision is the state - they do have the right to, for instance, lock a child up, if they have committed crimes of a bad enough nature, or to declare a child mentally incompetent to make a decision for themselves. A parent has responsibilities for a child, but not total control of their lives. Especially fro a 16 year old.

[riderinthestorm]

219. Parents force cosmetic procedures on their children all the time without their consent.

Circumcision, ear piercing, tattoos... Its not that cut and dried.

[muriel_volestrangler]

221. And I oppose them all

though I've never actually heard of of ear piercings or tattoos done by parents without children saying yes, though I can believe they do them to children too young to understand the consequences.

[riderinthestorm]

222. In the US, Hispanic baby girls very commonly sport pierced ears. Baby Hindu girls with bindis

tattooed. Of course ritualistic circumcision is also common...

Those are just the most common I've encountered - all of them done to the child as infants. Certainly without their consent. Parents can, and do, body modifications on their children with impunity regularly, dictating to their minor children what is going to happen to their bodies.

The ethics of all of this - exactly how much say should parents have over their minor children and their bodies - are certainly fraught with conflict.

(let the circumcision wars begin... )

[MADem]

213. Well, pregnancy isn't illegal.

In most, if not all, states you have to be eighteen to get a tattoo (Texas is one of them), and even in states where pot is decriminalized or legal (and Texas is not one of those, I don't think), you have to be eighteen as well.

That's the nub, there--some activities are legal, but only once you hit the age of majority, others are not.

[The Flaming Red Head]

241. thats the truth.

[booley]

3. and anti abortion people will trumpet this as a win for their side

... apparently not understanding what "choice" means.

Too bad those same people also oppose this girl getting assistance to help raise her child.

[Jerry442]

45. Ironic, isn't it, that when....

...a woman is allowed to choose freely and decides to carry a pregnancy to term, the anti-choicers will claim that as a victory.

Too bad her new anti-choice friends will forget all about her and her child when it's no longer unborn.

[HockeyMom]

57. They are ProBIRTH

All they care about is the BIRTH. They don't give a crap what happens after that.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. I am pleased that she will get to exercise her CHOICE. n/t

[wordpix]

101. based on what? Some pseudo science spewed by pro-life groups?

No 16 year old girl should be having a baby. Period. I work with this age group and I wouldn't trust most of them to care for a dog, much less a baby.

Maybe back when, when kids were raised to care for farm animals from a young age, it was a different story. But nowadays, most 16 year olds do not have good horse sense.

[Tumbulu]

143. Agree - really I hope the

Baby is given to someone more capable of being a good parent. 16 in our culture is really immature.

[Puzzledtraveller]

153. Would you make your 16 year old have an abortion if she didn't want to?

[wordpix]

183. yes i would - at 16, she had no idea how to take care of herself, much less a baby

AND herself.

And I had to work full time with no extra money for sitters or baby day care.

So what is the point?

Don't you think there are enough humans on the planet? I think the number is 7 billion, even as we wipe out every wildlife species on the planet.

[muriel_volestrangler]

187. Forcing people to have abortions because of your opinion of their abilities

is damn near eugenics. When you then bring up the total population, it looks just like forced eugenics.

[wordpix]

228. OK, YOU take care of the baby and 16 y.o., then. I don't want to

[The Flaming Red Head]

242. No forcing anyone to do something like that

maybe she'll put the baby up for adoption.

Your physical body is in better shape at 16, than say at 35 or 45. I don't think a woman should be forced either way.

Older women are gong to have a hard time with these new laws if they ever implement them. After 40 Downs Syndrome is more prevalent, not to mention all the things that can go wrong with the mother's health.

People (women) are going to die if these so-called pro-life laws are enforced. They'll end up loosing babies and Mamas. I shudder to think of what young and old women are going to go through in the near future.

[leftyohiolib]

159. i dont understand the 'consequences be damned all that matters is she got her choice'

crowd -

[bhikkhu]

160. Me too, and I hope she has some real plan for her future

I suppose the worst-case is she's keeping the baby because her parents were against it. And I can imagine kids who would do that just out of spite, and see nothing beyond next week as far as planning out the future for their two lives.

Best case is - she's actually mature enough to make the decision and winds up with enough support and help to give herself and the baby a decent life.

[rox63]

7. Very happy that her right to choose was protected

Most anti-choice folks forget that choice is about keeping control of what happens to your body. And if that means that you choose to have the baby, that should also be protected.

[kurtzapril4]

46. I agree....

But when one makes that choice, that person gets to accept ALL the consequences. That means no car, no cell phone, and no re-imbursement for expenses incurred in that choice. Unless she can buy her own car and cell phone.

I'll bet you a buck three-eighty that the grandparents are going to be footing most of the bills for her "choice." And doing lots of baby sitting.

[riderinthestorm]

56. Unfortunately when the girl is a minor, the parents are on the hook

by law.

[Igel]

116. Which is still ironic.

"My body, my choice"--fine.

"But sorry, my body, your responsibility. My choice, your obligations."

She's responsible or she's not. She's not both fully responsible and fully not responsible. Otherwise she's being taught that the really big decisions have no consequences that others can't be made responsible for. That breeds more irresponsibility--esp. since if she decides to wander off and something happens, there's no doubt that she won't be held responsible.

We want A and not-A, and think that it's unreasonable not to have it as an inherent right. With this decision should have come emancipation.

[riderinthestorm]

121. Agreed. Its odd that neither the parents nor child pursued emancipation

So obviously there's SOMETHING still there between them.

The other problem is that this girl is a minor. We want choice for adult women but it gets pretty sticky when its minors involved.

I think the parents tried to enforce some responsibility (get a job, pay your own car expenses, pay your own cell phone etc.) and the girl threw a tantrum. Took a legal step - maybe a legal step too far that she couldn't turn back from. My troubled 16 yr old has said and done some pretty irrational things when she's been mad at me for enforcing the consequences of her actions. Things she now regrets. Things we've discussed and worked out.

But we had time and not an impending pregnancy....

Alas, for this family its set in stone now.

What a mess. That poor baby.

[SylviaD]

8. Many young people are rabidly anti-choice. Something is not right in the education system. n/t

[iandhr]

20. I think polls of shown that most young Americans are socially liberal.

On choice, gay rights etc.

[alp227]

84. This girl is from Texas, so she may be more conservative then most others her age.

Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)

The South remains a stronghold for conservatism. It won't rise again though!

[iandhr]

131. True

[Dreamer Tatum]

58. Sounds like she chose just fine.

Her problem, such as it is, is that she seems to be rabidly not-the-choice-you-wanted.

[azurnoir]

9. a few things do not add up here - from the original DU post about this case

The pregnant young woman has lived with her grandparents for the past seven months, the court document states, and is nine weeks pregnant.

The plaintiff’s mother "invited the paternal grandparents to a bar for further discussion, where she suggested that she might slip R.E.K. an abortion pill through deception," according to the petition.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/13/16949097-pregnant-texas-teen-files-suit-against-parents-in-abortion-feud?lite

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022366823

compared to today's story where it is claimed that

The teen claimed in the lawsuit that her parents had taken away her phone, pulled her out of school, forced her to get two jobs and took away her car in an effort to "make her miserable so that she would give in to the coercion and have the abortion."'

http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-teen-wins-abortion-battle-150554993--abc-news-topstories.html

how is this possible when she wasn't even living with her parents?

[Dont call me Shirley]

25. Looks like the parents were trying to show her some adult responsibility.

[HockeyMom]

30. Thank you

Supplying a son or daughter with their own CAR is not even remotely included in what constitutes child support.

[azurnoir]

34. well that is possible but myself I think the whole thing is a steaming pile

that would not have stood up in a Blue state, no she should not be forced into an abortion by any means however she should not be able to make her parents responsible for her actions either, and inb some cases I suspect refusal to have an abortion is a way of rebelling against parental authority

I know of one case in real life where a parent did try to make or influence her daughter to have an abortion, the girl was 13 or 14 and a friend of my daughters at the time, she refused and had the baby but guess who raised and supported the baby-her Mom who was also a single parent, however for myself I encouraged my daughter to spend as much time as possible with______
because "she really needs a friend now" it was devious but it worked 10 years later she is not even considering becoming a parent for a long time to come, in fact I did similar stuff with all 3 of my now adult daughters no Grandkids yet

[Sekhmets Daughter]

40. They were paying the phone bill, owned the car and, as her parents, could

withdraw her from school. The "forced her to get 2 jobs is probably a bit of hyperbole. I blame the grandparents as well...More interested in being 'great grandparents' that what is best for this girl or her baby.

[azurnoir]

44. they could not withdraw her from school against her will NCLB

does not allow that not to mention she did not live with them

besides as I pointed out down thread what kind of message does this send to teenage girls in Texas, not getting what you want, get pregnant and then claim..........

as I said it is her choice but this case reeks

[Sekhmets Daughter]

52. Perhaps the grandparents don't live in the same school district?

They could have lied and said they were moving....My point is that it's easily accomplished. I agree, the case reeks...and one of things that it reeks from is lousy parenting skills.

[azurnoir]

59. that's possible but IMO the antichoicers capitalized on bad blood

between her and her parents and the claim that they would mickey her with RU486 also came off as smelly too, where would they procure it, and that her pregnancy was advanced beyond the point where the drug would be effective in ending the pregnancy, not to mention the insinuation that an abortion clinic would preform the procedure under these circumstances, they would not, also why are the parents responsible for her child, her choice her responsibility too

[Sekhmets Daughter]

65. Perhaps....

but all of the 'pro-choicers' have been rooting for just this result and are now celebrating.

I'd be willing to bet that the family had always preached "pro-life" until she became pregnant. I'd also be willing to bet that the reason she was living with her grandparents is that the parents objected to the boyfriend. Some stories are as old as the hills.

[azurnoir]

71. thatcould well be

and if I were to advise parents about teenage daughters boyfriends it would be "want to make that guy the best thing since sliced bread? object to him bad mouth him", because that is what will happen 9 times out of 10, if you raised her right trust that she has the self respect and presence of mind to see it for herself, it's not an easy thing to do, but it works

[Sekhmets Daughter]

72. Yep.

In fact, if you really object to him, you can go the other way and watch how quickly you daughter will drop him. Teenagers are so predictable.

[KatyMan]

92. Perhaps she is an

emancipated minor. If she is not, perhaps the family could look into it.

[MADem]

214. She clearly is not--otherwise, her parents wouldn't be required to pay for her care and car. nt

[Igel]

120. Don't know the background, but what you said is completely possible.

Parents have her on their phone plan. Remove her. Phone's gone.

Parents have her on their insurance. Remove her. Car can't be legally driven.

Unless, of course, she gets a job (or two) to pay for insurance and phone, assuming that somebody will cosign. As a minor, she can't enter into a binding contract on her own.

Parents own the car. Parents can reclaim it. Can a minor own title to a motor vehicle?

If she's with the grandparents, there's a chance--possibly an excellent chance--that she's outside of the zone for her school and possibly outside of the district. That would explain the need for the car--no bus service (although there's this scary need for seniors to show that they're seniors by driving to school--a schoolbus in your senior year is a sign of poverty and humiliation). If she's outside the district or school zone, then they can say she's not a resident and she's no longer enrolled.

Then again, she's their dependent. A parent in Texas has the right to home school. The kids don't withdraw themselves. The parent does it, usually while the kid's in class or at home (in my limited experience).

No car. No phone. No high school class. Social withdrawal--and since most of the 16-year-old girls I'm familiar with would rather see both parents slow-roasted over a charcoal pit at Homecoming than see their social support group diminished, this would be harsh coercion indeed.

[Katashi_itto]

13. WOOOT! A win for us! Pro-Choice wins! This will make a great precendent!

[SaveAmerica]

15. Her body, her choice. The parents couldn't have done that better

if they tried

[azurnoir]

22. Odd though she did not live with her parents

she had been living with her paternal Grandparents both now and at the time she became pregnant as per the original DU posting on this case, the being 'mickied' with RU486 smells too

The pregnant young woman has lived with her grandparents for the past seven months, the court document states, and is nine weeks pregnant.

The plaintiff’s mother "invited the paternal grandparents to a bar for further discussion, where she suggested that she might slip R.E.K. an abortion pill through deception," according to the petition

.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/13/16949097-pregnant-texas-teen-files-suit-against-parents-in-abortion-feud?lite

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022366823

[muriel_volestrangler]

188. According to CNN, the girl lives with her mother

Legal experts said that no one can force anyone, minor or not, to undergo an abortion. Monday's legal action was intended, the girl's lawyer said, to stop the parents from trying to influence their daughter to undergo the procedure.

Madison, 16, said he and the girl plan to get married. The legal age to marry in Texas is 16 with parental consent.

Both teens were in the courtroom on Monday. They sat separately from the girl's parents, who are divorced. The girl lives with her mother.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/18/us/texas-abortion-teen-lawsuit/index.html

And (source for this next is 'Baptist Press', so take it as partisan):

R.E.K., who had lived with her boyfriend's parents for several months prior to this case, now lives with her mother. Under the ruling, R.E.K. must maintain a "B" average in school in order to have unrestricted use of her vehicle.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/pregnant-teen-wins-case-against-parents#

[azurnoir]

195. thanks because we all know CNN is always accurate

and the Baptist Press claims she lives with the boyfriends parents until very recently

[JDPriestly]

18. It is her choice. And the grandparents and she should

receive child support from the father and his family.

Each woman must make this choice for herself.

[HockeyMom]

32. If the father is still in HS

and not employed, HIS parents shouldn't be under any obligation to support a grandchild either. I cannot understand what the hell is wrong with people on here. Support GRANDCHILDREN? Are you people that DESPERATE to have Grandchildren????

[JDPriestly]

177. The grandparents appear to be supporting this young

woman since she is already living with them. They seem to want this grandchild and to be protecting her from her parents.

It's her decision in my view.

Don't worry. The girl's parents will be delighted once the baby is born. Who can resist a grandchild? I certainly can't resist mine.

She is awfully young to be having a baby, but that is still her decision in my view.

[snooper2]

48. LOL, and her boyfriends fathers mechanic friend..

He's got some money to spare!

It's for the child!

[happyslug]

162. If the 16 year old left her parents home, they owe her NO SUPPORT

The Law makes a presumption, if a parent is ready, willing and IS providing a home, the children MUST live with them. If the child decided to live elsewhere, the parents have NO DUTY TO PAY SUPPORT.

Notice the test is if the CHILD decides to live elsewhere. If court ordered to some sort of confinement, the parents have to pay support. If a Court gives custody to a third party, support has to be paid. On the other hand, if a child goes out on her own, she is on her own.

Please note, I am discussing teenagers. The courts view children over 14 as adults if they are competent and can take care of themselves. Below age 7, children are viewed as incompetent. Between 7 and 14 it is on a case by case basis. Thus, in at least theory, a 7 year old could be on her own and the parents will NOT be held to be liable for support.

In the real world, we are almost always taking about teens over age 14, sometimes 12 and 13 year olds but almost never below age 12. Thus for younger children this is almost never an issue. A further complication is School, many States have attendance requirements up to age 16, other age 17 or 18. Texas uses 18 as its compulsory age to attend school:

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/educ/ECSCompulsoryAge.pdf

Please note, Children and Youth generally has jurisdiction over children below 18, but only if they are in "Danger", if the child is NOT in "Danger" then no jurisdiction (i.e. no CYS Jurisdiction if the Child has a place to live, i.e. a place to sleep and eat that meets the minimal requirements of the 21st century).

Now, if you are taking about the Father of the expected child, yes he has a duty to pay support, but NOT his parents. The reports I have read is he is also 16 years of age, and most courts will NOT order him to pay any support till he at least graduate High School and if he goes to Collage, till he finished Collage. The reason for this is simple, the more education he gets, the higher income he can earn and the more support he can pay later on. I suspect that will be six years from now, and in the mean time who will support his expectant child and the 16 year old mother? Not the grandparents and knowing Texas, not the State of Texas (and that is true is ALL the states I know of, the Standard of Need, a amount determined by Congress to be the bare minimum you need to survive is $710 a month, no state gives that amount in welfare to anyone, even with the Federal Government willing to pick up 1/2 of the tab up to the Standard of Need).

Thus the question is who and how is this baby to be supported? It looks like the the Maternal Grandparents, for no one is else willing or required by law to do so (and the welfare amount from Texas will NOT pay for her car, let alone the rent for a house).

[JDPriestly]

178. This seems so topsy turvy..

Many states require children to provide for their indigent elderly parents.

3900. Subject to this division, the father and mother of a minor child have an equal responsibility to support their child in the
manner suitable to the child's circumstances.

3901. (a) The duty of support imposed by Section 3900 continues as to an unmarried child who has attained the age of 18 years, is a
full-time high school student, and who is not self-supporting, until the time the child completes the 12th grade or attains the age of 19
years, whichever occurs first.
(b) Nothing in this section limits a parent's ability to agree to provide additional support or the court's power to inquire whether an
agreement to provide additional support has been made.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=03001-04000&file=3900-3902

3930. A parent does not have the duty to support a child of the
parent's child.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=03001-04000&file=3930

As a grandmother, I can't imagine that it would be necessary for a court to order grandparents in a position to support a grandchild to do so. And in some cases, it used to be that if a child was incapable or found to be incapable of taking care of his/her child, the grandparents could obtain government assistance for the child. I don't know whether that is still the case. I am not concerned. Unless the grandparents already have a number of grandchildren, their hearts will be completely taken by this new grandchildren.

Sign me, "A helplessly dedicated and enamored grandmother."

[happyslug]

223. I use to deal with Children and Youth and Child placement.

In the cases I handled it was mostly neglect not abuse

And I had to tell my clients, if they were grandparents, to say they could NOT take the grandchildren UNLESS they get Foster care money, CYS has a duty to put children with the nearest available relative, generally the Grandparents. On the other hand if the Grandparents take the Children WITHOUT being first authorize Foster Care Money, all the Grandparents can apply for is Public Welfare for the Children.

The reason for this is simple, Foster Care provides more money to the Grandparents then Public Welfare, and thus costs the State more money. Yes it is money driven. Thus CYS will make the threat to put the Children elsewhere and try to force the Grandparents to take the children WITHOUT Foster care assistance. It is only if the Grandparents stand FIRM that CYS finally authorize foster care money.

As to support of your parents, that was the requirement under the Common Law and thus technically the law in EVERY State of the union (It is also among the Ten Commandments as part of "Honoring" your parents). On the other hand, Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) has taken over most of those duties. Long term nursing care has taken over the need for Adult children to be in the same home as their parent in their advance age. All together the modern welfare state has replace the need for Children to Take care of their Parents, but the States have NOT repealed the the law that Children must support their parents.

In those states that have Statutes that replaced the Common Law Rule, the chief reason for the lack of repeal is what would be the result of the repeal? Would it reinstate the Common Law Rule? Or stop any such requirement? The general rule is that any law, in derogation of the Common Law, when it is repealed, reinstates that Common Law (Thus the Law from the 1880s outlawing Washer Women in the US Army is still on the books, for under the Common Law every group of 20 men in the Army was entitled to one washer woman, if the law outlawing washer women is repealed, that would reinstate the Common Law Rule and the US Army does NOT want to pay for Washer Women).

In those states that NEVER repealed the Common Law Rule, how do you repeal something that no one had enforced in 60-80 years? In fact many Judges think is no longer the law just because no one has asked for it to be enforced in decades (or worse, do not even think it as the law, for no one has ever file to enforce such a claim).

Thus this requirement stays on the book, more from neglect than anything else. They would only come into play if Social Security is ever abolished and Senior Citizens get to be to costly for the State to keep, so the State sues the Children under these laws (Or the cost of long term care gets to high AND the Federal Government stops paying for it). As long as the Federal Government is willing to pay for long term care, the States prefer the Federal Money, with all its restrictions, to the almost impossible ability to get money from the adult children of people in long term care.

[riderinthestorm]

224. Per the article, the girl is living with her mom. And the parents have been ordered to $upport her

Also how does a teenager qualify to enter into legal contracts under the age of 18?

If the parents don't have to support their child if they move out, and the state of TX won't step up under the Standard of Need, then there's a glaring gap there. From what I've read parents are legally responsible for their children until they are 18 - house, clothing and food. Parents are also legally responsible any legal trouble the child causes until they are 18 yrs old.

I presumed 18 yrs old was designated because this is the age the child would have the legal ability to enter into a legal contract for housing for example. That doesn't work if the child isn't somehow legally emancipated.

Confused.

[happyslug]

231. A parent's legal liability for the acts of their children is limited

The Common Law Rule is a parent is NOT responsible for the acts of their Children UNLESS they are part of the underlying action OR have reasonable expectation that the child would do something bad (i.e. parents are NOT liable of their child pull a chair from under someone else UNLESS it can be shown they know the Child would do so AND could have prevented it, if the parents do NOT meet BOTH requirements, the parents are NOT liable for the act of their child).

Now, many states have passed laws making parent's liable for the acts of their children, but these laws, being in derogation of the Common Law are strictly construed, i.e. The parents MUST meet all of the requirements of those laws, or the parents are NOT liable. If a Child does an act and someone is harmed, the Child can be held liable, but except if there is a law passed by the State Legislature, the parents are NOT liable.

Now, parents are liable to their children when it comes to support, generally a place to live, food and clothing, but only to what would be expected of a person of the parent's income (i.e. if the parents have no income, their children can starve, live on the streets and go around in rags). On the other hand, of the parents have income (or can get welfare and most parents fall into one or the other categories) then they have a duty to provide housing, food and clothing.

As to entering into a valid contract, a teenager can do so if emancipated. i.e. not under the care, control or supervision of their parents by the act of the parents. Some states permit judges to emancipate minors, other states require no such finding by a judge (but permit such findings if needed).

Here is a paper I did several years ago on Emancipation in Pennsylvania, a state that does NOT require a child to go in front of a judge to be emancipated: I deleted the section on what type of employment a minor can do, for that is a restriction on EMPLOYERS not parents, and I excluded the section of the law where 18-21 years olds are now treated as if there were over age 21.

Paper on Emancipation

Note: This paper was written so my clients have a better idea of what emancipation is and is not. This letter provides information on what is emancipation of a minor.

Reference to the P.L.E.

Enclosed herein are copies of a section of the Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia (P.L.E.). The P.L.E. is an encyclopedia of Pennsylvania law. I have attached the section of the P.L.E. regarding emancipation of children . The section covers the subject of emancipation of minors fairly completely therefore I will not repeat what is covered by the P.L.E. in this letter.

EMANCIPATION OF CHILDREN - CONTRACTS (Footnote 2)

An emancipated minor has all of the responsibilities and duties of an adult. All contracts agreed to by an emancipated minor are enforceable against the emancipated minor. Most, if not all, of the case law involve the issue of contract law. The reason being is that is when the issue of whether the minor was emancipated or not is a factor (Footnote 3)

Since 1972, by statute, the right to enter a contract and the right to sue (or be sued) starts at age eighteen (18) not twenty-one (21) (Footnote 4).

ACT OF EMANCIPATION.

For children under age Eighteen (18) the legal presumption is that they are not emancipated, but this can be rebutted. The burden of proof of showing whether a child is emancipated or not is on the party seeking to show the minor was emancipation.

Careful reading of the P.L.E. section cited above (and attached to this letter) requires an "juristic act" of the parent before an minor is emancipated. Now the "juristic act" does not have to be any formal act, but some indication that the parent is no longer exercising "care, control or supervision" over the minor. It can be as simple as not requiring the child to go to school or to the act of ordering the child out of the parents' home.

When a parent orders a minor out of their home, that is clearly a "juristic act" that makes the child emancipated, but does not relieve the child (or the parent) of any statutory restrictions or duties imposed by age.

On the other hand a minor moving to college is probably not a "juristic act" because while the minor is no longer living with the parents, the parents are indirectly exercising "care, control and supervision" of the minor.
Holding a job.

Do remember merely having a job does not make a person emancipated, what is required is to be no longer to be under the Acare, control or supervision of one's parents. Work is a factor, but not conclusive by itself.
Marriage (footnote 5)

Marriage is not a conclusive factor in determining whether a child is emancipated, but is a factor to be considered under the totality of the circumstances. Berks County Children and Youth Services vs Rowan, 631 A.2d. 615, 428 Pa Super. 448 (1993).
Pregnancy

Pregnancy does not make a minor emancipated. Now Pregnancy is often evidence of a lack of care, control and supervision, but the pregnancy by itself is only evidence of a lack of care, control, and supervision not proof of such lack of care, control and supervision. Please note special rules covers abortion and emancipation . (Footnote 6)

Payment of Child Support

Payment of child support indicates a minor in un-emancipated for emancipation of a minor ends all duty to pay child support for that minor.

Ending of Emancipation before age Eighteen 18.

Also note that an emancipated minor can cease to be an emancipated minor if the minor returns to the "care, control and supervision" of his parent.

If such an event occurs all contracts formed by the minor, while emancipated, are still valid. The minor is still liable for such pre-existing contracts, but any contracts entered into by the now un-emancipated minor are treated as if the minor was never emancipated. i.e. all such contracts are voidable. This is rare but can occur.

To better understand this remember that the common law rule was developed to reflect the working conditions in rural America and England prior to 1900. It was not un-common for minors to leave the family home and go to work on various farms in the spring, summer and fall. During the winter they would return to the family home.

During the time away from home the minors would have to be able to contract for housing and food (As while as work). Since the minor left the family home with permission of their parents the A "juristic act" part of emancipation would have been fulfilled, thus their were emancipated minors during such periods. Such emancipated minors could make valid enforceable contracts.

When the minor returned to the family home the minor would become "un-emancipated". As a now un-emancipated minor they could no longer make valid enforceable contracts.


As to the contracts formed while emancipated, those would still be enforceable against the minor, but no new valid contracts could be entered until emancipated again the next planting season.
Please remember more than just moving out or into the family home would be needed to show a change in emancipation status, but such a movement would be strong evidence of such a change. (See the attached paper from the P.L.E. for more details).

EXCLUSIONS FROM EMANCIPATION.

Emancipation only relates to non-statutory age restrictions or statutory restriction where age is silent. Emancipation was the common law recognition that until this century it was not uncommon for minors to start to work independent of their parents at age fourteen (14) or younger. Thus it was and still is mostly a contract issue.
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION AND CHILDREN AND YOUTH JURISDICTION.

Thus the issue of emancipation has no effect on juvenile criminal law (42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6302, 6322) or Children and Youth Services (23 Pa. C.S.A. § 6303) jurisdiction, both are covered by statutes that clearly set a jurisdictional age of eighteen (18).

Thus it is possible for an emancipated minor to be under the jurisdiction of CYS. Emancipation does not, and can not, relieve a minor of supervision by CYS or a probation officer, both are given authority by statute which is independent of the issue of emancipation of the minor.

SCHOOLING AND EDUCATION.

Emancipation has no effect on education law due to the enabling statute (24 P.S. § 13-1327) which requires "parent, guardian, or other person having control or charge of any child or children of compulsory school age" to send that child or children to school. A parent can be required and even fined if an emancipated minor does not go to school. Compulsory school age is defined by 24 P.S. § 13-1326 as children between age eight (8) and seventeen (17). (An exception is made for home-schooling, but that is still education.)

Do note the 24 P.S. § 13-1327 does not require the parent or guardian to have control of the minor. The "control or charge" used in the act addresses who had control of children in addition to parents and guardians.

While the state statute only require attendance between the ages of eight (8) and seventeen (17), most school districts require attendance till graduation. Since such requirements exceed state law requirements such school districts rules are fully enforceable against the minor. FOR THIS REASON BEFORE YOU DECIDE TO DROP OUT OF SCHOOL PLEASE CONTRACT YOUR SCHOOL ON HOW TO DO SO. Furthermore we at AAAAAA strongly recommended you do complete High School . (Footnote 7)

AUTOMOBILES AND DRIVING.

Emancipation has no effect on driving an automobile. Driving is governed by the Vehicle Code. Under 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 6303 of the Vehicle Code a person over age Sixteen (16) will be treated AIn the same manner as an adult@ for an summary offense under the vehicle code.

One must be over eighteen (18) to drive after 11:00 PM.

ALCOHOL AND WORK.

Emancipation does not permit an emancipated minor to buy alcohol [47 P.S. § 4-493 (1)] or be employed by a tavern or other dangerous occupations [43 P.S. § 44]. Those require the minor to be over eighteen 18.

I have attached a copy of 43 P.S. § 44 so you can see the restrictions imposed by age on employment. Emancipation has no affect on the restrictions imposed by age in 43 P.S. § 44 . (Footnote 8)

VOTING.

Emancipated minors can not vote in an election, 25 P.S. § 2811 requires all voters to be over eighteen (18).

MILITARY SERVICE.

Emancipated minors can not enlist in the U.S. military until the minor is eighteen (18). High School graduates below age 18 may enlist with permission of their parents. At one time the U.S. Military did take other minors into the military, but always required parental permission (See Footnote 8). The federal acceptance of such non-high school graduates ended in the 1970s, because the military wanted high school graduates (See footnote 7 for more details).

POLICY OF AND THE ISSUE OF EMANCIPATION

Our policy at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX on emancipation of minors is driven by both the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX requirement that the minor "prove" they are emancipated and the need to provide such minors legal means to obtain such housing. XXXXX policy is to prepare affidavits signed by the minor (and if possible the parents) that the parents are not exercising any Acare, control or supervision" of the minor. To satisfy the requirement of some "juristic act" of the parent we try to state the facts of the case completely as it can be done in the affidavit. For example if the parent is no longer living with the minor, that is stated in the affidavit. If the minor is living with the parents we try to state facts that shows a "juristic act" and a lack of "care, control and supervision" by any adult.

Change of the Age of majority for Contracts is now Age 18.

While Pennsylvania still follow the common law rule that majority is achieve at age twenty-one (21), this Rule is defined more by the exception to age twenty-one (21) than by the Rule itself. This can be seen above where the cut off is almost always age eighteen (18).

Under 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 5101 any minor between the ages of eighteen (18) and twenty-one (21) can make a valid contract (or sue or be sued) as if he was over age twenty-one (21). Since contracts dominate our lives this change made most emancipations moot except for minors less than eighteen (18) years of age .(See footnote 10)

JUDICIAL FINDINGS OF EMANCIPATION.

Unlike some states, Pennsylvania does not have a procedure to be Emancipated by Court Action. While there is no stated procedure, if the affidavits mentioned above are not enough AAAAAA will file in Common Pleas Court for a Declaratory Judgment that the minor is Emancipated. A Declaratory Judgment of Emancipation is where the minor files an action against the minor=s parents that the minor is emancipated. It would be than up to a Judge to decide as a matter of law whether the minor is emancipated. Once that finding is done than the Judge would enter an ORDER declaring the minor an emancipated minor. That way the Minor would have a Court Order saying the minor is an emancipated minor.

Please note for a judge to find the minor to be emancipated the minor must not be under the care control or supervision of the minor's parents do to some "juristic act" of the parents. (The same test as stated above and in the P.L.E. on the next page).

Footnotes:

1. See page 8 of this paper.

2 Please note contracts can be classified into three categories:
I. Valid Contracts, enforceable by either party.
II. Void Contracts NOT enforceable by either party.
III. Voidable contracts which are enforceable by one party but not the other. Regarding un-emancipated minors all contracts entered into by un-emancipated minors are voidable, i.e. may be enforced by the minor against the other side, but can not be enforced against the minor.

3. At a minimum, absent some clear exception to the contrary, a person reaches the age of majority by act of law when that person reaches age Twenty One (21). 1 Pa. C.S.A. § 1991, 23 Pa C.S.A. § 5302. Marino vs Marino 601 A.2d 1240, 411 Pa Super. 424. As you will see in the rest of this paper most areas of the law grants the age of majority at Eighteen 18.

4. See the page 12 of this paper for a copy of the statute in question, which is 23 Pa. C.S. A. Section 5101. In most circumstances a person reaches the age of majority at age eighteen (18), but the general rule is still age twenty-one (21). I do not know of any area of the law that still looks at age twenty-one (21) as the age of majority, almost all have adopted age eighteen (18), but if an area of the law is silent, majority is twenty-one (21) not eighteen (18). Please note Alcohol is governed by its own statute which sets the minimum age limit at Twenty-one (21).

5.Please note Pennsylvania as of January 1st 2005 no longer permits Common Law Marriages. Under the Common Law a child as young as 12 could marry. That is no longer the law in Pennsylvania

6.See 18 Pa C.S.A. § 3206, for purposes of the "Abortion Control Act", age of majority is set at eighteen (18) but also permits a "Emancipated Minors" to obtain an abortion without permission of their parents. Please note under 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 3206 (c) if the minor's parents refuse consent OR the minor decide NOT to inform her parents, the minor can obtain permission from the Court of Common Pleas through an expedited petition system under Orphans Court Rule 16. The records of the petition must be confidential and sealed from the public. Thus the mere fact that a woman=s parents has refused permission to have an abortion (or the woman has refused to ask her parents for such permission, DOES NOT MAKE HER AN EMANCIPATED MINOR.
Please note do to Federal Funding Restrictions, AAAAAA can not participate in any such abortion petition, I only list it as an example of what is needed to be an emancipated minor.

7. One of the best reasons to complete high school is the experience it gives you. The best way to see this is to the explain the US Army recruiting scandal of the Mid 1970s. After the Draft was abolished in 1972, the US Army had a problem recruiting. As a result to get recruits, recruiters would take the test for recruits who could not pass the entrance test into the Army. After the scandal broke the Army found out many of the recruits had succeed in their military obligations while many had not. The Army did a study and determined only one factor set the recruits who fulfilled their military obligations apart from those that did not. How well the recruits did on the entrance exam had no bearing, how well they did in school, how intelligent their where, were not the difference. The difference was whether the recruit finished High School, not how well they did in High School, just finished High School. Basically the study pointed out that if you can take what occurs in most High Schools, you can succeed in life.

8. See Page 9 for the text of 43 P.S. § 44.

9. The states did take emancipated minors into the National Guard until 1947. In 1947 Congress required all members of the National Guard to have prior federal military experience so the Federal rules also applied to the National Guard.

10 See page 11 of this paper for the text of 23 Pa. C.S.A. § 5101. Now, theoretically, there may be an area of the law where majority is still age 21. While it appears that every possible law has been passed making majority at age 18 instead of age 21, they may be areas of the law where none of the above cited statutes apply and therefore the age of majority for that area of the law would be age 21. At present I do not see any area of the law which is not covered by the above statutes.

Pennsylvania Law Encyclopedia
PARENT AND CHILD
28 P.L.E. ' 19
Emancipation

A minor child is emancipated when he is released from legal subjection of his parents33. Emancipation results not from conduct of the child, but from some juristic act or other conduct of the parent from which the extinguishment of parental rights and filial duties may be inferred34. Emancipation from parents' service may be as perfect when children continue to live with parents as if they were living separately therefrom 35.

Child's retention of wages. The mere fact that a child is allowed to retain his own wages while living in the home of his parents does not of itself constitute emancipation of the child 36.

Failure to support and abandonment. The non-support of a minor child, when established by a court order of support, constitutes abandonment by the non-supporting parent, and is tantamount to an admission of the emancipation of the child37.

Attainment of majority. Ordinarily, a child is emancipated at the age of 21, even though he continues to live with his parents. However, if the child is incompetent when he reaches the age of 21, his status continues to be the same as that of an minor38.

Evidence and questions of law and fact. Emancipation of a minor child is not to be presumed, but must be proved39. The burden of establish the emancipation of a minor child by a parent is on the party asserting it40.

The question of whether a minor child has been emancipated by a parent is one of fact for the jury where the evidence on the issue is in conflict41. On the other hand, where the facts are undisputed, whether there has been an emancipation is a question of law42.


Footnotes:

33 Parks v. Parks, 135 A.2d 65, 329 Pa. 287 (1957)
Marino by Marino v. Marino, 601 A.2d 1240, 411 Pa. Super. 424 (1992)
Ross v. Com. Dept of Public Welfare, 431 A.2d 1135, 60 Pa. Cmwlth 403, (1981).
York County Probation Dept. v. Creech, 12 D & C 4th, (1991 York Co)
Zoba v. Zoba, 40 D & C 3d (1981).
34 Detwiler v. Detwiler, 162 Pa. Super. 383, 57 A. 2d 426 (1948),
Trosky v. Mann, 398 Pa. Super. 369, 581 A2d 177 (1990)
35 Beaver v. Bare, 104 Pa. 58, 14 W.N.C. 53, 32 P.L.J. 161 (1883).
36 Dunks v. Grey, 3 F. 862 (1880).
Detwiler v. Detwiler, 162 Pa. Super. 383, 57 A. 2d 426 (1948).
37 Com. v. Simpson, 49 Berks 144, (1957); Adoption of Budziak, 28 Erie 195 (1946).
38
Gaydoes v. Domabyl, 301 Pa. 523, 152 A. 549 (1931).
Colantoni v. Colantoni, 220 Pa. Super 46, 281 A2d. 662 (1971)
Com. ex rel Walsh v. Welsh, 222 Pa. Super 585, 296 A2d 891 (1972)
39 Detwiler v. Detwiler, 162 Pa. Super. 383, 57 A.2d 426 (1948);
Caddy v. Com Dept of Public Welfare, 14 Pa. Cmwlth. 317, 322 A2d 140 (1974);
Ross v. Com. Dept. of Public Welfare, 60 Pa. Cmwlth. 403, 431 A.2d 1135 (1981)
40 Detwiler v. Detwiler, 162 Pa. Super. 383, 57 A.2d 426 (1948).
41 Detwiler v. Detwiler, 162 Pa. Super. 383, 57 A.2d 426 (1948);
Beaver v. Bare, 104 Pa. 58, 14 W.N.C. 53, 32 P.L.J. 161.
Dunlevy v. Butler County Nat. Bank, 64 D. & C. 535, 62 York 117, 30 West. 155 (1948).
Mumma v. Friendenhart, 25 Dauph. 8, (1921).
42 Detwiler v. Detwiler, 162 Pa. Super. 383, 57 A. 2d 426 (1948); Delaware County Nat. Bank v. Headley, 4 A. 464, 1 Sad. 499, 2 Cent. 374, 2 Del. 282, 3 Lanc.Rev.133, 17 W.N.C. 557.

[riderinthestorm]

232. Ok but that's PA, not TX which does require a judge for emancipation

which this girl did not pursue.

As to the legal responsibility of parents, I know it varies from state to state. I think its interesting that PA is obviously much more lax. Here in IL for example, if my teen throws an underage drinking party while I'm gone and without permission, and one of the teens gets in a drunk driving crash after leaving the party, I will go to jail as though I were there and gave that teen the drinks.

That's just one example. There are others regarding vandalism etc.

Regardless for this particular case the girl is living with her mom. The parents deny the allegations this girl has made in her lawsuit and they are clearly supporting her so it doesn't sound as though emancipation is in the works either.

Thanks for the info!

[happyslug]

233. Illinois your limit is $20,000 plus attorney's fees

§115/3: Parents liable for willful or malicious property damage or personal injury. §115/3: $20,000 Plus Atty’s Fees (115/5)

§5/21-1.2: Parent liable for child’s damage to church, mosque, synagogue, cemetery, etc. §5/21-1.2: $20,000 Plus Atty’s Fees (115/5)

§5/16A-7: Parents civilly liable for retail theft by child.§5/16A-7: $20,000 Plus Atty’s Fees (115/5), Plus $100 to $1,000 and Atty’s Fees/Costs

http://www.mwl-law.com/CM/Resources/Parental-Responsibility-Chart.pdf

In Illinois, the $20,000 liability only applies to acts of children over age 11:

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Parental Responsibility Law.
(Source: P.A. 76-1679.)

(740 ILCS 115/2) (from Ch. 70, par. 52)
Sec. 2. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the terms specified have the meanings ascribed to them:
(1) "Legal guardian" means a person appointed guardian, or given custody, of a minor by a circuit court of the State, but does not include a person appointed guardian, or given custody, of a minor under the Juvenile Court Act or the Juvenile Court Act of 1987.
(2) "Minor" means a person who is above the age of 11 years, but not yet 19 years of age.
(Source: P.A. 85-1209.)

(740 ILCS 115/3) (from Ch. 70, par. 53)
Sec. 3. Liability. The parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated minor who resides with such parent or legal guardian is liable for actual damages for the wilful or malicious acts of such minor which cause injury to a person or property, including damages caused by a minor who has been adjudicated a delinquent for violating Section 21-1.3 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012. Reasonable attorney's fees may be awarded to any plaintiff in any action under this Act. If the plaintiff is a governmental unit, reasonable attorney's fees may be awarded up to $15,000.
The changes to this Section made by this amendatory Act of the 95th General Assembly apply to causes of action accruing on or after its effective date.
(Source: P.A. 97-1150, eff. 1-25-13.)

(740 ILCS 115/4) (from Ch. 70, par. 54)
Sec. 4. Any municipal corporation, county, township, village or any other political subdivision or department of the State of Illinois, or the United States or any of its instrumentalities, or any person, partnership, corporation, association or any incorporated or unincorporated religious, educational or charitable organization is entitled to enforce the liability imposed by this Act.
(Source: P.A. 88-406.)

(740 ILCS 115/5) (from Ch. 70, par. 55)
Sec. 5. Limitation on damages; damages allowable. No recovery under this Act may exceed $20,000 actual damages for each person, or legal entity as provided in Section 4 of this Act, for the first act or occurrence of such wilful or malicious acts by the minor causing injury, and $30,000 if a pattern or practice of wilful or malicious acts by a minor exists for a separate act or occurrence, in addition to taxable court costs and attorney's fees. In determining the damages to be allowed in an action under this Act for personal injury, only medical, dental and hospital expenses and expenses for treatment by Christian Science practitioners and nursing care appropriate thereto may be considered.
The changes to this Section made by this amendatory Act of the 95th General Assembly apply to causes of action accruing on or after its effective date.
(Source: P.A. 94-130, eff. 7-7-05; 95-914, eff. 1-1-09.)

(740 ILCS 115/6) (from Ch. 70, par. 56)
Sec. 6.
This Act shall not affect the recovery of damages in any other cause of action where the liability of the parent or legal guardian is predicated on a common law basis.
(Source: P.A. 76-1679.)

(740 ILCS 115/7) (from Ch. 70, par. 57)
Sec. 7. Section 12-107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as now or hereafter amended, is not applicable to judgments obtained under this Act.
(Source: P.A. 82-783.)

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2045&ChapterID=57

The parents or legal guardians of an unemancipated minor, other than guardians appointed under the Juvenile Court Act or the Juvenile Court Act of 1987, shall be liable for the amount of any judgment for actual damages rendered against the minor under this subsection in an amount not exceeding the amount provided under Section 5 of the Parental Responsibility Law.

(Source: P.A. 97-1108, eff. 1-1-13.)
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+21%2C+Subdiv%2E+1&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=64550000&SeqEnd=65150000

(a) A person who commits the offense of retail theft as defined in subdivision (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(8) of Section 16-25 shall be civilly liable to the merchant of the merchandise in an amount consisting of:
(i) actual damages equal to the full retail value of

the merchandise; plus
(ii) an amount not less than $100 nor more than

$1,000; plus
(iii) attorney's fees and court costs.
(b) If a minor commits the offense of retail theft, the parents or guardian of the minor shall be civilly liable as provided in this Section; however, a guardian appointed pursuant to the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 shall not be liable under this Section. Total recovery under this Section shall not exceed the maximum recovery permitted under Section 5 of the Parental Responsibility Law. For the purposes of this Section, "minor" means a person who is less than 19 years of age, is unemancipated, and resides with his or her parent or parents or legal guardian.
(c) A conviction or a plea of guilty to the offense of retail theft is not a prerequisite to the bringing of a civil suit under this Section.
(d) Judgments arising under this Section may be assigned.
(Source: P.A. 97-597, eff. 1-1-12.)

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+16%2C+Subdiv%2E+10&ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=39100000&SeqEnd=39600000

Now in Texas the langauge is different:

FAMILY CODE

TITLE 2. CHILD IN RELATION TO THE FAMILY

SUBTITLE B. PARENTAL LIABILITY

CHAPTER 41. LIABILITY OF PARENTS FOR CONDUCT OF CHILD

Sec. 41.001. LIABILITY. A parent or other person who has the duty of control and reasonable discipline of a child is liable for any property damage proximately caused by:
(1) the negligent conduct of the child if the conduct is reasonably attributable to the negligent failure of the parent or other person to exercise that duty; or
(2) the wilful and malicious conduct of a child who is at least 10 years of age but under 18 years of age.

Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 587, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.


Sec. 41.002. LIMIT OF DAMAGES. Recovery for damage caused by wilful and malicious conduct is limited to actual damages, not to exceed $25,000 per occurrence, plus court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 783, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


Sec. 41.0025. LIABILITY FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE TO AN INN OR HOTEL. (a) Notwithstanding Section 41.002, recovery of damages by an inn or hotel for wilful and malicious conduct is limited to actual damages, not to exceed $25,000 per occurrence, plus court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.
(b) In this section "occurrence" means one incident on a single day in one hotel room. The term does not include incidents in separate rooms or incidents that occur on different days.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 40, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


Sec. 41.003. VENUE. A suit as provided by this chapter may be filed in the county in which the conduct of the child occurred or in the county in which the defendant resides.

Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 20, Sec. 1, eff. April 20, 1995.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/FA/htm/FA.41.htm


i.e, it is a defence if the acts of the Child is BEYOUND what a normal parent would consider a child would do. It is also a defence if the child is below age 10.

[happyslug]

234. As to emancipation, the Illinois Emancipation of Minors Act has the following sentence:

This Act does not limit or exclude any other means either in statute or case law by which a minor may become emancipated.

The Illinois Emancipation of Minors Act:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2094&ChapterID=59

In simple terms, Illinois permits a child to ask to be emancipated, but Illinois does NOT make it a requirement. The Common Law Rule as to Emancipation are still alive and well in Illinois.

Don't worry Texas is similar, in its Emancipation of Minors act they use the word "MAY", which in the law means "MAY" NOT "Shall". "Shall" would mean the Minor MUST use the act, "May" means a minor does NOT have to use the act but may if they so desire.

Sec. 31.001. REQUIREMENTS. (a) A minor may petition to have the disabilities of minority removed for limited or general purposes if the minor is:
(1) a resident of this state;
(2) 17 years of age, or at least 16 years of age and living separate and apart from the minor's parents, managing conservator, or guardian; and
(3) self-supporting and managing the minor's own financial affairs.
(b) A minor may file suit under this chapter in the minor's own name. The minor need not be represented by next friend.

Sec. 31.002. REQUISITES OF PETITION; VERIFICATION. (a) The petition for removal of disabilities of minority must state:
(1) the name, age, and place of residence of the petitioner;
(2) the name and place of residence of each living parent;
(3) the name and place of residence of the guardian of the person and the guardian of the estate, if any;
(4) the name and place of residence of the managing conservator, if any;
(5) the reasons why removal would be in the best interest of the minor; and
(6) the purposes for which removal is requested.
(b) A parent of the petitioner must verify the petition, except that if a managing conservator or guardian of the person has been appointed, the petition must be verified by that person. If the person who is to verify the petition is unavailable or that person's whereabouts are unknown, the guardian ad litem shall verify the petition.

Sec. 31.003. VENUE. The petitioner shall file the petition in the county in which the petitioner resides.

Sec. 31.004. GUARDIAN AD LITEM. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the interest of the petitioner at the hearing.

Sec. 31.005. ORDER. The court by order, or the Texas Supreme Court by rule or order, may remove the disabilities of minority of a minor, including any restriction imposed by Chapter 32, if the court or the Texas Supreme Court finds the removal to be in the best interest of the petitioner. The order or rule must state the limited or general purposes for which disabilities are removed.

Sec. 31.006. EFFECT OF GENERAL REMOVAL. Except for specific constitutional and statutory age requirements, a minor whose disabilities are removed for general purposes has the capacity of an adult, including the capacity to contract. Except as provided by federal law, all educational rights accorded to the parent of a student, including the right to make education decisions under Section 151.003(a)(10), transfer to the minor whose disabilities are removed for general purposes.

Sec. 31.007. REGISTRATION OF ORDER OF ANOTHER STATE OR NATION. (a) A nonresident minor who has had the disabilities of minority removed in the state of the minor's residence may file a certified copy of the order removing disabilities in the deed records of any county in this state.
(b) When a certified copy of the order of a court of another state or nation is filed, the minor has the capacity of an adult, except as provided by Section 31.006 and by the terms of the order.

[riderinthestorm]

236. A child cannot simply declare themselves emancipated and voila! Its done

I've never heard of your interpretation (I'm not a lawyer) but I've had some experience with this.

Be that as it may, the link you provided does not contain the text that you have highlighted. This is what Illinois says a minor must do to become emancipated.

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2094&ChapAct=750%C3%82%20ILCS%C3%82%2030/&ChapterID=59&ChapterName=FAMILIES&ActName=Emancipation+of+Minors+Act.

As for TX, the teen must go to court in order to get a "Removal of Disabilities" petition signed by a judge (or they can get married or in the armed services) in order to be legally emancipated.

There are a slew of teens (and adults) who would gladly, legally, shed their legal obligations by simply walking away. It simply doesn't work that way. Even runaways and children who have been abandoned by their parents have to go through a legal process to sever the legal parental ties.

[happyslug]

237. Look at Section 2, the last sentence of the second paragraph, it reads as follows:

This Act does not limit or exclude any other means either in statute or case law by which a minor may become emancipated.

The term "Case law" means the Common Law, judge made law over the last 1000 years. Thus the COMMON LAW RULE AS TO EMANCIPATION IS STILL THE LAW IN ILLINOIS. A minor MAY use that statute, but the law is clear, the Minor does NOT have to. A minor can use the Common Law Rule instead.

Furthermore I never said a Child can declare themselves emancipated, it require some act of the Child's parents that they are NOT doing any "Care, Control or Supervision" over the minor. Notice a court is NOT needed, all that is needed is the act of the parents.

Furthermore the term "Act" is broader then the term "permission", an act can be a negative act, i.e. not tracking down a run away. Not looking for a run a way. On the other hand a child running away does NOT make themselves emancipated, unless the parents do nothing about it.

Now, reading the Illinois Statute, the langauge implies a minor CAN declare themselves emancipated if the Minor complies with the Statute. This is different from the Common Law Rules, which restricted Emancipation to some act of the Parents, but the Illinois Statute gives that right to a minor, if the Minor complies with the terms of the Act.



Section 1 and 2 of your citation:

FAMILIES
(750 IL CS 30/) Emancipation of Minors Act.
(750 IL CS 30/1) (from Ch. 40, par. 2201)
Sec. 1. Short title. This Act may be cited as the Emancipation of Minors Act.
(Source: P.A. 93-105, WFF. 7-8-03.)

(750 IL CS 30/2) (from Ch. 40, par. 2202)
Sec. 2. Purpose and policy. The purpose of this Act is to provide a means by which a mature minor who has demonstrated the ability and capacity to manage his own affairs and to live wholly or partially independent of his parents or guardian, may obtain the legal status of an emancipated person with power to enter into valid legal contracts. This Act is also intended (i) to provide a means by which a homeless minor who is seeking assistance may have the authority to consent, independent of his or her parents or guardian, to receive shelter, housing, and services provided by a licensed agency that has the ability and willingness to serve the homeless minor and (ii) to do so without requiring the delay or difficulty of first holding a hearing.

This Act is not intended to interfere with the integrity of the family or the rights of parents and their children. No order of complete or partial emancipation may be entered under this Act if there is any objection by the minor, his parents or guardian. No petition may be filed for the partial emancipation of a homeless minor unless appropriate attempts have been made to reunify the homeless minor with his or her family through the services of a Comprehensive Community Based Youth Services Agency. This Act does not limit or exclude any other means either in statute or case law by which a minor may become emancipated.
(Source: P.A. 93-105, WFF. 7-8-03.)

As to Texas, their statute clearly uses the word "MAY" which in legal terms means "MAY" i.e. a minor MAY use the Statute and MAY NOT use the Statute and instead rely on the Common Law Rule. The Texas Statute does NOT repeal the Common Law Rule thus it is still enforced in Texas and "MAY" be used instead of the Statute.

[iandhr]

19. If she want to have the child its her choice.

That what being PRO-CHOICE is all about.

[alp227]

88. even for juveniles?

If, so how is america a nation of laws anymore without parental authority?

[Igel]

124. All rights.

No responsibilities.

The responsibilities are simply somebody else's problem and obviously cannot be of no concern to us. Even mentioning them is offensive, depriving us of our right to be happy and untrammeled of conscience.

[iandhr]

133. Forced abortions are what happen in dictatorships.

Being pro-choice means you also have to CHOOSE weather or not to have an abortion.

[alp227]

200. But her PARENTS, not government are forcing the abortion.

[Crunchy Frog]

175. So would it also be okay for parents to force a girl

to go through a pregnancy against her will? I would think that parental authority would cut both ways on this issue.

[alp227]

198. Is it against the law for parents to make such decisions?

I think this lawsuit opens the door for petty parent-child disagreements to become lawsuits.

[Xithras]

21. I agree, but requiring the parents to give her a car?

Screw that! While the young woman absolutely does have the right to make her own choice, it's insane for the judge to require her parents to foot half the bill AND provide her with a car. SHE has a right to make her own decisions about her body. THEY have a right to determine which perks they do, or do not, offer their kids.

[azurnoir]

24. Quite a message to teenage girls in Texas huh?

parents aren't giving you what you want? Get pregnant and then claim they're trying to force you into having an abortion, gee you didn't even have to be living with them either (as in this case) just make the claim and well see these results????

[NaturalHigh]

134. Actually, I thought they agreed to that in some sort of mediation.

I'm not saying that they should be on the hook for it, but I also don't think the entire story is being told by either side. That's not such a bad thing, though; this family definitely needs some privacy and time to adjust right now.

[bluestateguy]

26. Very good

Her right to choose has been protected.

Forced abortions are every bit as wrong as forced births.

[VA_Jill]

38. Absolutely

That is what choice is about, regardless of what the "pro-birth" people claim.

[wisteria]

47. Choice is one thing, forcing the parents to pay for the choice is another.

I do not agree with that part of the judgement.

[rachel1]

29. It's her body, her life, and her choice

[wisteria]

36. Then she should make the choice to not use the car, the phone or

have her parents pay for half the hospital bills.

[wordpix]

107. as I said to my daughter at this age, when you're paying for

your own car, your own rent, your own insurance, your own food, your own heat, your own college, your own etc. etc., then you can __________ and make your own choices. Until then, I have the final say.

At the time, she wanted to go to a rave, not have a baby. I didn't give in, and she didn't go.

[wisteria]

33. The parents should not be responsible for anything-it isn't there choice.

What is this kid going to do, go to court everytime she doesn't like something her parents want to do or not do? Why are they even responsible for her at this point? She has made herself an amancipated minor.

[riderinthestorm]

49. Is she an emancipated minor? I hadn't seen that. Link? Otherwise they are responsible

legally responsible for their child (and her troubles) until she's 18 years old.

Its the law.

[wisteria]

60. I think she is independant of her parents.

She does not live at home from what I understand. If I am wrong I stand corrected.

[riderinthestorm]

63. Unless she's won a legal emancipation, they are still responsible for her legally

It doesn't matter if she doesn't live with them, they are still responsible for her medical care, legal troubles, housing her, food, clothing, making sure she attends school etc.

This case really sucks. For all of them. Sounds like some severely dysfunctional family dynamics here.



I feel awful for a baby coming into this storm.

[azurnoir]

62. link she was not living with her parent now or at the time she became pregnant

The pregnant young woman has lived with her grandparents for the past seven months, the court document states, and is nine weeks pregnant.

The plaintiff’s mother "invited the paternal grandparents to a bar for further discussion, where she suggested that she might slip R.E.K. an abortion pill through deception," according to the petition.


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/13/16949097-pregnant-texas-teen-files-suit-against-parents-in-abortion-feud?lite

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022366823

now if the RU486 accusation doesn't ping the BS-ometer well

[riderinthestorm]

66. Oh I agree. This case sucks but the parents are still legally responsible

unless this girl got a legal emancipation, they are still on the hook. Doesn't matter if she doesn't live with them.

Sounds like the dysfunctional family from hell right?

This poor baby is certainly arriving into a storm.

[notadmblnd]

91. The proof is the fact that she wasn't living with her parents and I'll tell you how I know.

When I was 15, I was living with my mother and step dad number 2. I was going to school, I had a job. Well the home environment was pretty sucky since the step dad drank and liked to be both physically and verbally abusive. I got tired of it and I left home. Low and behold, my mother called the police and they escorted her to where I was staying. My mother made the mistake of telling the police that I was 16 and the police told her that there was nothing she could do to make me come home, as long as I had a place to stay, I could do what I want. I was an emancipated minor.

[riderinthestorm]

100. Those cops were wrong. The law is clear, you must follow a legal

procedure to be legally emancipated, not simply move out.

You can google it. The answers aren't hard to find for TX. Every state (even some counties) are different but all of them require legal paperwork to be filed for a formal emancipation.

That girl is the parent's responsibility. That's why they've been ordered to pay half her medical expenses, provide her with transportation etc. Because they are still legally responsible.

[notadmblnd]

103. I have no opinion to express about the girl or her parents here.

I was just explaining to you what I know from experience.

[riderinthestorm]

114. Sounds like kind cops who took your side and fudged things.

Unfortunately this girl has unleashed the law on her parents. Nobody's going to look aside on this one anymore.

What a dysfunctional family. That poor baby.

[Yo_Mama]

130. It seems an abnormal situation

The teen claimed in the lawsuit that her parents had taken away her phone, pulled her out of school, forced her to get two jobs and took away her car in an effort to "make her miserable so that she would give in to the coercion and have the abortion."'

If she had been pulled out of school by her parents, there is good reason for the judge's intervention. Also, there is a provision in the ruling that their obligation to her will end if she marries the boy.

You cannot use your legal sway over a minor to coerce her into having an abortion. You just can't. According to thid story, the mother told the boy's parents that she was thinking of "slipping" the girl an abortion pill:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/texas-teen-sues-parents-over-abortion-fight/

This is an odd one. The parents have different addresses, and if the girl was living with grandma? I presume that the judge verified at least some of this with other parties.

[VA_Jill]

37. Choice

is about CHOICE, it is not about being pro-abortion. The girl has a legal right to her choice whether it's the parents' choice or not. IF the parents had been at all supportive, no matter what their personal feelings, it would not have come to this. The fact that they reacted with anger and coercion says a lot about their lack of parenting ability. We went through a similar situation and chose to support our child in whatever she decided. We also carefully and quietly explained what the alternatives were, how she might cope, and to what extent we would be able to help her financially as well as in other ways. She made her own decision. Good parents, IMO, would do the same. Obviously there's a broken relationship in this case.

[Jerry442]

50. Absolutley it's about choice.

A right to make only choices that everyone else considers wise and prudent is no right at all.

[wisteria]

54. Maybe they know their daughter all too well.

Maybe they had wanted more for her than just having a baby at sixteen, or maybe they know how irresponsible she is and who will be paying for and raising this baby. I can understand their anger, and maybe some of their reaction to the situaton. Forcing an abortion on the girl is wrong, but the parents should no have to pay anything for her choice.

[DaveJ]

64. This sort of thing makes me glad I don't have kids.

Parents have to pay for their kids' behavior when they are minors, however irrational. Same thing if a kid goes out and vandalizes something or wrecks a car, parents have to pay. What a nightmare kids can be.

[riderinthestorm]

67. Yup. I have a wild teen. Unfortunately I'm experienced nt

[jeff47]

69. The thing is it's the daughter's choice, which means all the responsibilities of that choice

Which means her own car, her own medical bills, and lots and lots of her own sleepless nights.

That's not the result of this court case. It's her choice, but her parent's car, her parents paying the medical bills, and her parents will probably have to do a lot of care for the infant.

That's not right. She wants a choice? Then she has to live with the consequences of that choice. Not make her parents live with the consequences of that choice.

[riderinthestorm]

76. The law makes her parents live with the consequences of that choice

They have no choice, they are legally responsible for her.





(gawd, I'm starting to sound like a broken record. I'm going to stop spamming this thread now... everyone who has me on ignore must be on this thread. LOL)

[jeff47]

146. Which means nothing.

The entire point of my post is that this situation is not fair, regardless of the law.

Plus, your argument completely ignores the parts of the law that were ignored by this ruling: Either parents have absolute medical control (which is the law), or the daughter can choose to have a baby against her parent's wishes.

You can be sure that if the parents wanted the grandchild and the daughter wanted an abortion, this court would not have ruled for the daughter.

[riderinthestorm]

218. I agree its unfair regardless of the law. And you put your finger right on the heart of the matter

which is how much control do parents really have vis a vis minor children's abortion/adoption/pregnancy etc. The TX right to life center that sponsored this girl's claim is exploiting the gray areas here (right to choose, medical privacy etc) vs parental authority over their children.

Its a hot topic (which is why this thread is now more than 200 + posts long).

My point was to simply point out the law. The court here obviously made their own interpretation - a weird hybrid of standard legally mandated parental responsibilities and "extras" - like tacking on that the girl had to be provided a car.

[bluestateguy]

42. Is the father in the picture here?

Or is he just some high school dropout loser?

[DollarBillHines]

73. His pic is at the link, along with some zombie-like guy.

A really creepy-looking pic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

192. Best not to judge people by their looks

Brief video of him speaking here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/18/us/texas-abortion-teen-lawsuit/index.html

Interview here: http://piersmorgan.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/19/clips-from-last-night-abortion-case-in-texas-comes-to-an-end-john-walsh-on-improving-gun-control/

He seems reasonably realistic about things.

[muriel_volestrangler]

190. He wants to marry her

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/18/us/texas-abortion-teen-lawsuit/index.html

[HockeyMom]

68. Forced Support for Grandchildren?

Would pepole on here say the same if she was 12 years old? Make her parents support her AND the baby for how long? Ever hear of unfit mothers? The state CAN declare, that she at her age is an unfit mother because she cannot support and raise her child as a Minor herself. That baby once it is born needs to be either put up for adoption, or put in foster care until Mom is an ADULT and can support herself and her child.

I really do not understand so many of your views on here. I am well old enough to be a grandparent, but no way in hell would I support one.

[uppityperson]

75. If a woman can not support herself and her child(ren), the child(ren) should be fostered out or adop

or adopted?

needs to be either put up for adoption, or put in foster care until Mom is an ADULT and can support herself and her child.

Tell me you didn't mean that mothers that are adults and can not support themselves and child should have the child adopted out or put into foster care.

[HockeyMom]

83. My husband's father and uncle

were put in an orphanageby their parents back in the 30s because their parents were both sick and could not care for or afford to keep them. The parents both died very young, long before their boys were adults. Both sons became wards of the state until they reached adulthood.

You are losingsight of the fact that the mother in this case is still a MINOR, not an adult woman. She is only an adult woman when it comes to her body, not other legal issues. Unless she can be declared an Emancipated Minor, an adult will still have to make decisions for her.

Giving birth does not make one an adult.

[uppityperson]

89. I understand this is a minor, but was expanding on what you wrote, trying to clarify.

Things were different in the 1930s and 2010's. We have more support for many now. Do you think a woman who is unable to support herself and her child should have to give that child up for adoption or fostering? Or just that a unemancipated minor mom should? Or that just a minor should?

[uppityperson]

77. Good luck to that teen. I hope if she changes her mind or needs help later she can get help. Choice

is choice and I wish her a positive outcome and life. ETA this last bit from the article makes me think she will need help.

The teen claimed in the lawsuit that her parents had taken away her phone, pulled her out of school, forced her to get two jobs and took away her car in an effort to "make her miserable so that she would give in to the coercion and have the abortion."'

Responsibility is not an easy thing. I hope she gets the help she needs and is able to grow into a more mature person.

[tammywammy]

229. This is the best post I've read on this thread.

I'm also pro-choice, and I hope this is a positive outcome for her and that she gets the help she'll need.

[marybourg]

79. The parents could have (should have?) petitioned to have her declared an "emancipated minor".

The fact that they apparently did not, shows that they don't want to wash their hands of her and only wanted what was best for her, not necessarily best for them.

[MADem]

215. The person being "emancipated" has to prove that they can support themselves.

The parents can't initiate the petition to get rid of the kid.

In order to be emancipated, a minor has to show the ability to support themselves, house themselves, feed themselves, etc.

It's not a tool to kick a kid out of the house.

[happyslug]

235. Not in most states.

For example Massachusetts has no formal way to Emancipate a minor, thus the common law rule apples. i.e. if the Child is no longer under the Care, Control or Supervision of the child's parents due to some act of the parent. For more see the following:

http://www.clcm.org/edemancipate.html
http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/emancipation.html

Now, Massachusetts, like most states have has some sort of Child Protection Service (or Children and Youth, both names are used nationwide) whose jurisdiction covers children under 19 who are in "danger" from abuse or neglect. Such Child Protection Service has the right to step in and force a child back with the child's parents (or other placement) if the child can NOT take care of themselves.

The problem is the jurisdiction of Child Protective Service or Children and Youth Service is INDEPENDENT of Emancipation. Child Protective Services can step in and protect a child, who is emancipated AND leave that child be emancipated once the child is out of "Danger". Furthermore if the emancipated Minor is NOT in "Danger" such Child Protective Service has no jurisdiction over the child.

On the other hand Child Protective Service can step in and say the reason the child is in "Danger" is that the child was Emancipated, and end the Emancipation. Common Law Rule as to Emancipation always permitted Children to go in and out of Emancipation so this is NOT much of a change.

Thus, under the Common Law, being able to support themselves is NOT a factor if a child was Emancipated by their parent, but is a factor under Child Protective Services Jurisdiction.

Just pointing out that from a strict legal rule, your statement is WRONG as to Emancipation, for you are confusing it with the duties of support a parent owes to a Child under Child Protective Services Jurisdiction In most cases Emancipation would NOT trigger an intervention by Child Protective Services, but in those cases where it does, Child Protective Services can undo the Emancipation.

[Ilsa]

86. A family I knew about had a pregnant 15 year old. They made her

Give up the baby in adoption. She had wanted to keep the baby.

Less than six months later she was pregnant again. The father was so tired of the family drama that he told she she had to abort, or he'd kick her out. She had the abortion.

I can't help but think that she probably got pregnant again, very soon, since she was forced to give up the first two.

This family was religious fundamentalists. They protested against abortion until the father decided his daughter needed one. Controlling father, submissive mother was not interested in defending her daughter.

[OmahaBlueDog]

93. 1) "Roe" made this her choice. There can be no obligation for her to abort.

2) The tattoo/cigarette/pot comparison doesn't work. This is the natural biological outcome of a natural biological function. It's on the parents as long as she's a minor. It's no different than if she got cancer or an inflamed appendix.

3) Speaking of on-the-parents: let this be a lesson; if you don't want to raise grandkids or pay for them, you might want to discuss something more reality based than abstinence. $2.00 probably would have solved this problem.

4) Assuming that what the girl said was true, I get what the parents were trying to do. Make the kid work two jobs and take away perqs to welcome their daughter to the wonderful world of single motherhood. Sorry parents, wrong answer, IMHO. Here is what I would do instead: a) make her give up the name of dad, and sue/negotiate for paternity/child support; b) immediately dual enroll my daughter in Community College and a GED program c) get her into a line of studies that will get her a job with benefits in 2 years or less d) now that we're not kidding ourselves about her being abstinent, get her on birth control. Their object should be to get her to realistic self-sufficiency.

5) There are worse things in life than having a kid young. She could have been injured or killed in a car wreck; OD'd; been raped (hmy understanding is that is not how she became pregnant); attempted suicide; or any one of the thousands of other bad things that happen to young women. Her life will be hard, but she's far from the first woman to have a baby at 16. The parents will be far from the first to have a grand kid from their high school aged daughter. The parents have a choice now: they can throw this whole burden on their daughter, or they can try their hand at being grandparents. Personally, I hope they can heal their family and learn to love their grandkid.

[krispos42]

95. Good.

The parents were pushing too hard.

[wordpix]

99. so the parents are forced to raise the baby they don't want to raise

something is very, very wrong with this picture.

Not to mention, the father is forced to pay for supporting the baby he doesn't want.

I wonder what will happen when the baby gets here. This is so screwed up.

[Blue_Tires]

102. why didn't the court mandate any percentage of support from the baby's father??

[McCamy Taylor]

115. My question. Where is the dad?

[MADem]

216. He wants to marry the young lady, per CNN. nt

[UnseenUndergrad]

230. I saw.

Not a bad-seeming boy, in that southern, teenage, "deer-stuck-in-the-headlights" way accentuated by Itchy and Twitchy on either side.

But anyway...

"A blessing on your head (Mazel Tov, Mazel Tov)

To see a daughter wed. (Mazel Tov, Mazel Tov)"

Dying to use that.

[wordpix]

111. apparently you have not experienced dealing with teenage mothers

I teach in a public school where there are unfortunately lots of them. They think they can handle the responsibilities of parenting when they get pregnant, but once the baby comes they find they are totally unprepared.

I'm glad you want YOUR taxes to support the teenage mom and baby. That's not where I want my taxes to go.

[NaturalHigh]

138. So...you don't want your taxes to support a single mother and baby.

I'm not wild about this either, but do you want them to starve? Are you against food stamps? What about WIC or public health clinics? I just want to be clear about where you want your tax dollars spent.

[wordpix]

184. actually, if I had my CHOICE, every school would begin in middle school to have a class in

relationships and parenting, to continue through high school. Topics would include not just pregnancy but also the economics of raising a baby/child, legal responsibilities for both parents, STDs, why girls get pregnant (beyond the obvious sex stuff---such as they want someone to love them), the realities of staying home with baby and not being free to go out with friends, etc. Give them a dose of reality and watch the romantic notions of having a baby recede.

My inner city girls who get pregnant often do so to get their man or to get attention. They don't realize the attention doesn't last long, and this is not the way to get a 16 y.o. boy to stick around.

[NaturalHigh]

226. I agree with all of that.

[AzDar]

108. The only way this should be done is if the teen is also 'emancipated'.

If the parents have no say, they should bear no legal responsibility, either.

[smirkymonkey]

144. Thank YOU!

I don't see why the parents should be responsible for raising this child because of their daughter and her irresposible boyfriend's lack of responsibility. If they want to carry their child to term, they should either decide to support it together or else give it up for adoption. They should not foist off the burden onto their families.

[Tumbulu]

165. agree nt

[Pool Hall Ace]

110. She wins? I don't see any winners here.

[treestar]

112. I wonder what the lawsuit was based on

Don't see the court's having authority to make that kind of an order.

[McCamy Taylor]

125. Curious about how the right wing will cover this. Basically, it means that no one can "punish" their

child for getting pregnant. I suspect that a lot of fundies are going to be raging mad at the thought of a court telling them they have to provide 1) a car 2) a phone 3) hold a baby shower 4) buy cute maternity clothes. Most of the fundies I know kick their daughter out if she comes home pregnant.

Hope that all the pregnant girls whose right wing parents kicked them out of the home read about this one and take their parents to court!

[Tumbulu]

166. good points

that gave me a good laugh!

[judesedit]

126. It's her life & the baby's life. See how she deals with it.Could go either way.Her body / her choice

She will grow up instantly once that baby's born and needs attention 24/7. Hopefully she won't resent it for the rest of her life and take it out on the child.

[christx30]

244. Hopefully you're right

But my wife's 17 year old sister has a 7 month old. Barely spends time with the little girl. Always at the mall trying to hook up with one of 3 boyfriends. Spends a month with a guy until he buys her a month card for her cell phone, then dumps him. My wife spends more time playing with the baby and helping her sit up, ect. I'll be shocked if the baby doesn't think my wife is her mom.

[mountain grammy]

128. Now the kid's a saint for saving her unborn baby.. (which is, of course, her choice)

but woe to this young girl and her baby if they require any kind of public assistance. Then she'll be a drain, another dependent, lazy, welfare queen taking my tax dollars to live it up on food stamps and WIC. Wonder if she will find help from her friends at the Texas Center for Defense of Life then?

[Tumbulu]

167. Oh yes, I wonder how helpful they will be then.......

don't have too much hope about that, though.

[obama2terms]

132. Good

No matter what the age of the girl is something like this should be her decision

[NaturalHigh]

140. Anyone who thinks the parents should have the authority to force an abortion...

is not pro-choice. They are just pro-abortion. Hypocrites.

Is having the baby the right choice for this girl? Time will tell. Should she give it up for adoption? Probably, but again, time will tell. There is absolutely no way, though, that the parents in this case should be able to force her to abort the baby.

Now, how much they should be on the hook for medical and living expenses is a different story. I read that the final agreement was part of some sort of mediation. Undoubtedly, we don't know the whole story about this case, and for the sake of this family, we probably shouldn't.

[CC]

147. So hopefully when the court gets

the 16 year old girl that wants an abortion and whose parents are trying to force her to give birth will also decide in favor of the 16 year old. I do believe in the my body my choice and that it should work both ways. I don't get the letting her use the car bit as she could take the bus to and from school and get rides to work and medical appointments. Grounding a minor from using a car owned by parents should not be the courts decision as long as her parents are making sure gets to to where she needs to be. I hope the court also imposed some family counseling for all involved and parenting classes for the teen parents. By all I mean both mother's & father's families. Sometimes it just helps to have an uninvolved person to talk to and be referee.

[NaturalHigh]

150. As I posted somewhere else...

I think the car deal and all of that came out of some sort of mediation that was submitted to the court by a third party. Yeah, strange deal, though.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

174. The bus service in Houston is horrible. You have to have a car to get anyplace

in a reasonable amount of time.

Houston is also extremely large. There are 4 million people in the metro area and 2.5 million in the city limits. The city is about 40 miles across, as well.

Houston is not comparable to New York, Boston or San Francisco.. Those cities are high-density and have excellent subways and buses.

Southern, low-density cities are hell without a car.

[Pterodactyl]

149. What a brave young woman!

Her parents just wanted to control her body. Creeps.

[Tumbulu]

170. I don't see it that way

I see her parents trying to get her to be sensible. And I feel for them. As I have said upthread I know so many grandparents raising grandchildren because CPS has taken them away from their irresponsible children. It is a real thing and it is a real tragedy for all involved.

I am sorry, teenaged pregnancies are a mess.

[Pterodactyl]

173. But in two years, she won't be a teen. And her child will have a whole life ahead of her!

Even if the child is put up for adoption, that's still better than the alternative.

[Ken Burch]

152. being "pro-choice" means defending THIS choice, too.

Forced abortion is just as wrong as forced birth.

[Puzzledtraveller]

155. Yes, I am proud to defend both sides of the coin too.

[etherealtruth]

180. I am with you.

If the story were about parents refusing to allow an abortion for a 16 year old, i would be horrified.

I am pro-choice ... I may not agree with this 16 year olds choice, but it is not mine to make.

(I do really feel for the parents ... I don't think any rational parent wants their 16 YO to have a child ....)

[EastKYLiberal]

182. Agreed. I guess it's true that some people are pro-abortion...

And not pro-choice.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

189. agreed

[happyslug]

164. There is something wrong here, this was filed February 11 and the parents had 20 days to respond

But today is the 19th, and an order is issued? 11 plus 20 is March 3rd. This sounds like all that is being cited is the PETITION of the 16 year old, a Petition filed with the Court BUT not ruled on yet.

I can see the Judge ordering the Parents NOT to force the 16 year old to have an abortion, but I also do NOT see a Judge ordering them to continue to pay for her car, or even leave her keep the car. I do NOT see a Judge ordering them to pay support, in fact I can see the Judge ORDERING her back to her parent's home.

Article where the 20 days to respond was mentioned:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/texas-teen-sues-parents-over-abortion-fight/

There is something wrong here, and the worse part given we are dealing with a 16 year old, the actual hearing probably will be closed to the Public so we will NEVER know what happened.

[muriel_volestrangler]

194. it's an agreement between the sides

Texas parents agree not to pressure teen to have abortion

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/18/us/texas-abortion-teen-lawsuit/index.html

The video there says "after about an hour and a half meeting between lawyers for all sides, an agreement was reached. The girl's parents agreed to let her continue carrying the baby, and they gave her permission to marry the child's father."

And Baptist Press says it has details of the agreement:

The parents of both teens agreed in the final order to equally share financial responsibility for medical care related to the pregnancy. If the teens get married the financial burden will fall to them.

R.E.K.'s parents, the defendants in the case, gave "irrevocable consent" for their daughter to marry the father of her baby. Under a 2005 Texas law, teens as young as 16 can marry with parental consent.
...
R.E.K., who had lived with her boyfriend's parents for several months prior to this case, now lives with her mother. Under the ruling, R.E.K. must maintain a "B" average in school in order to have unrestricted use of her vehicle.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/pregnant-teen-wins-case-against-parents

[Nine]

227. Thank you for the additional information. (nt)

[Nine]

169. I agree with those who've said information is missing from this story.

I feel like we're being given a carefully crafted narrative.

The only specific claims I've seen against the parents are that they had "taken away her phone, pulled her out of school, forced her to get two jobs and taken away her car." I see nothing wrong with taking away the phone and car; I don't consider those coercion. Forcing her to quit school and work two jobs against her will would be wrong, if true, but I don't see how they would have managed to do that anyway, especially if she's not living with them. Something doesn't add up here. I wonder if we'll ever find out the whole story.

[secondwind]

176. The fundies will pick up the tab, wait and see.. I can already see her in her own McMansion and with

her own reality show, making her and her teen boyfriend instant millionaires.

[TexasBushwhacker]

239. Norma McCorvey aka "Jane Roe"

has made pro-life activism her career. She's written 2 books and different pro-life groups throw a little money her way now and then.

[Notafraidtoo]

179. My take on this

If you choose to have a child then you are responsible by law until they are 18 for food,shelter,clothing and any negative or destructive things they do. i know many of you don't think the parents should be responsible for the grandchild but that is yet just another thing you are responsible for if you have children. does it suck and seem unfair? Hell yeah it does,but you choose to bring them in to the world, its part of the job sorry guys.

When shes 18 then they are off the hook but i am certain if they have a heart at all they will adore the grandchild and help out. I also think the fathers parents are on the hook for as much as the daughters again just part of the cost of having a baby. One of those unforeseen possible consequence of our choices.

To those of you who don't have children but plan on having them please consider this might be something you will have to deal with are you ready to help raise a grand baby that your teenager has? If the answer is no don't have kids you are not ready for that choice.

[avebury]

181. At the end of the video report it states that her

parents have agreed to let the girl marry her boyfriend. Cudos for him for stepping up to the plate. If the girl gets married that will take her parents off the hook for having to cover her expenses. Gift her the car as a wedding present and let her take over the costs to insure and maintain it. Maybe this couple will make it long term and maybe they won't. Only time will tell how well they are able to act as responsible parents and adults. They have both chosen a tough road to follow. Birth control would have been a much better option at their age then parenthood.

The pro-lifers will be crowing that she has made the right decision to protect the life of her unborn child. Unfortunately none of them will be around to help change diapers, rock a sick baby in the middle of the night, or provide child care so that the parents can complete their high school education and attend college so that they can provide a more financially stable home for the baby. They are also the crowd that would be upset if the parents need the benefit of any government programs. Sacredness of life ends at birth, then you are on your own.


http://news.yahoo.com/pregnant-teen-wins-abortion-battle-150554993--abc-news-topstories.html

[Jennicut]

240. Very tough choice but in the end it was her choice.

I think at 16 you should be allowed to make the choice, if you want an abortion or if you want to keep the baby. My cousin chose to have an abortion at 15 and then later on got married and had three children. She said she has no regrets as it was all her choice. Her parents were very supportive and she said herself it was her mistake and her choice as to what to do.

[pink-o]

191. Something tells me the girl would've lost her legal battle

if it had been HER who wanted the abortion, but the parents were forcing her to carry it to term.

Just sayin'...

[Nine]

193. Here is some more information.

Both of these were linked to from the Yahoo story but one of them was a bad link. I fixed it.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/texas-teen-sues-parents-over-abortion-fight/

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8997504

I think basically all that happened is that the teen got a restraining order against her parents. The order says they can't use physical or verbal threats to try to force her to terminate the pregnancy. There are a lot of allegations against the parents but so far nothing has been proven. It is my understanding that the burden of proof to get a restraining order against someone is extremely low. If they were indeed threatening her (and I don't normally see, "We'll take your phone and car away," as a threat, though I suppose it could be in some circumstances), then I have no problem with the specific injunction. The lawsuit itself has to do with the teen's freedom to make her own decision in this matter, but since the injunction is in effect until the end of her pregnancy, I don't see what the point would be in continuing with the suit except to set precedent. I also think a lot of the information we've been getting so far has been one-sided and provided by a group with an agenda.

I do think this case brings up some interesting issues, such as how a minor's right to make his/her own medical decisions intersects with a parent's right to generally make decisions on behalf of a minor. And how far people can be held responsible for circumstances which they feel they did not create and have no power to control.

[riderinthestorm]

220. The girl's parents deny all of the allegations.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/18/us/texas-abortion-teen-lawsuit/index.html

The girl's parents denied in court records all allegations and asked to have the cost of retaining an attorney reimbursed. That request was not granted.

In the interest of protecting the girl's privacy, CNN is not identifying her or her parents. However, the restraining order includes the parents' names.

"Under Texas procedure when it's a case involving and alleging abuse of a minor, the minor's identity should be protected, and the girl's attorneys might have violated that," said Susan Hays, an attorney and legal adviser to Jane's Due Process, an Austin-based nonprofit organization that represents pregnant minors in the state.

snip

"There's an understanding that we will not make law on the back of a 16-year-old girl, and that's what her attorneys are doing," said Hays. "I'm appalled that they've done this to this girl. Putting the girl's parents' names in court documents ... her attorneys have done a lousy job protecting her confidentiality."