Other Cases Affecting Children

American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren (1997) 16 Cal.4th 307 [940 P.2d 797, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 210]. Supreme Court of California.

Health-care providers brought suit challenging Assembly Bill 2274, enacted by the Legislature in 1987. AB 2274 amended both Family Code section 6925 and Health & Safety Code section 123450 to exclude abortion from the medical procedures that an unemancipated minor could consent to without parental consent or following a judicial bypass procedure. The superior court issued a preliminary injunction and the Court of Appeal affirmed and remanded for trial. On remand the superior court found the statute to be unconstitutional; the Court of Appeal affirmed. The Attorney General appealed, and in April 1996 the Supreme Court reversed, finding the law to be constitutional. Before the decision became final the Supreme Court granted rehearing.

On rehearing the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute violated the state constitutional right to privacy. The Court found that this case, in contrast to Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1 [865 P.2d 633, 26 Cal.Rptr.2d 834], involved "an interest fundamental to personal autonomy" and applied the compelling interest test. The Court held that the law intruded significantly on a child's right to make intimate personal decisions without interference from the state. The Court explicitly rejected the argument, relied on in the original decision, that children have lesser constitutional rights than adults. The Court further found that the state failed to establish that its intrusion was necessary to serve the proffered policy behind the statute, namely the protection of the mental, emotional, and physical health of children and the preservation of the parent-child relationship. The Court found that (1) the necessity of the restrictions was questionable in light of a child's ability to consent to other equally risky medical proceedings; (2) evidence indicates that rather than furthering the proffered justification for the legislation, the consent requirement would impede the interests; and (3) the record did not indicate that a physician would not be able to properly determine whether a child was competent to give informed consent.