(Code 1981, §15-11-682, enacted by Ga. L. 2013, p. 294, § 1-1/HB 242.)
Law reviews.- For note, "What Do We Have Against Parents?: An Assessment of Judicial Bypass Procedures and Parental Involvement in Abortions by Minors," see 43 Ga. L. Rev. 617 (2009).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Editor's notes.
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under pre-2014 Code Section 15-11-112, which was subsequently repealed but was succeeded by provisions in this Code section, are included in the annotations for this Code section. See the Editor's notes at the beginning of the chapter.
Constitutionality.
- Former Georgia Parental Notification Act's requirements, former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-110 et seq. (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-680 et seq.), taken together, did not unduly burden a minor's abortion decision. Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Miller, 934 F.2d 1462 (11th Cir. 1991) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-112).
Constructive delivery provision of subparagraph (a)(1)(C) of former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-112 (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-11-682) ensured that, with no parental action, and no actual notice to her parent, a minor can proceed with her abortion. The provision did not unduly burden a minor's abortion right, and it therefore survived constitutional scrutiny. Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Miller, 934 F.2d 1462 (11th Cir. 1991) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-112).
Notice.
- By limiting written notice to notice by the United States Postal Service - and excluding notice by private carriers such as Federal Express and Airborne Express - Georgia has enacted reasonable regulations that foster Georgia's important state interest in protecting immature minors. Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Miller, 934 F.2d 1462 (11th Cir. 1991) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-112).
Legislature may permit notice by telephone or in person, or by some other means that guarantees sufficient reliability; it may refuse to recognize notice if a physician simply sends a note home with a minor or uses an uncertified mail service since, with either of these methods, there is a substantial likelihood that the notice will not reach its destination. Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Miller, 934 F.2d 1462 (11th Cir. 1991) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-112).
Authority of judicial officers.
- An intake officer's authority to make a preliminary determination under Juvenile Court Rule 4.1 regarding a minor's petition does not impose an impermissible third-party veto over a minor's abortion decision. Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Miller, 934 F.2d 1462 (11th Cir. 1991) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-112).
Because a guardian ad litem who is familiar with the conduct of the waiver hearing and appeal offers invaluable assistance to a pregnant minor, Juvenile Court Rule 23.2, which provides for the appointment of a guardian, will promote rather than burden the minor's abortion decision. Planned Parenthood Ass'n v. Miller, 934 F.2d 1462 (11th Cir. 1991) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-112).
Waiver of notification denied.
- Juvenile court correctly found that an unemanicipated minor would have to notify her parents before having an abortion because she did not consult with her doctor before making this decision and there was no evidence that it would not be in her best interest to inform her parents. In re E.H., 240 Ga. App. 91, 524 S.E.2d 2 (1999) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 15-11-112).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
- Validity, construction, and application of statutes requiring parental notification of or consent to minor's abortion, 77 A.L.R.5th 1.