Case Name: In re Jane DOE 3
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2000-03-13
Citations: 19 S.W.3d 300
Docket Number: No. 00-0193
Parties: In re Jane DOE 3.
Judges: Justice GONZALES delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Chief Justice PHILLIPS joined, and in which Justice OWEN joined in Parts I and II.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 19
Pages: 300–322

Head Matter:
In re Jane DOE 3.
No. 00-0193.
Supreme Court of Texas.
March 13, 2000.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Jane Doe, a minor, applied to a trial court for an order authorizing her to consent to an abortion without notifying either of her parents pursuant to section 33.003 of the Family Code. The trial court denied her application, and the court of appeals affirmed that judgment. Chief Justice Phillips, Justice Hecht, Justice Owen, Justice Abbot and Justice Gonzales would hold that Doe did not establish as a matter of law that she was sufficiently mature and well informed to make the decision to have an abortion without notification of either of her parents, and that she did not establish as a matter of law that notification may lead to her physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Because the hearing in the trial court occurred on the second business day after this Court issued its decision in In re Jane Doe, 19 S.W.3d 249 (Tex.2000) (Doe 1), Chief Justice Phillips and Justice Gonzales would vacate the court of appeals' judgment and remand this matter to the trial court in the interest of justice. Justice Enoch, Justice BakeR, Justice Han-kinson, and Justice O'Neill would conclude that Doe proved emotional abuse as a matter of law. Although they would render judgment for Doe, Justice Enoch, Justice BakeR, Justice Hankinson, and Justice O'Neill join Chief Justice Phillips and Justice Gonzales in setting aside the court of appeals' judgment.
Accordingly, the judgments of the court of appeals and the trial court are set aside and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. See Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 622 n. 4, 626 (Tex.1993) (reversing the court of appeals' judgment and granting the lesser relief when a majority of the Court did not agree on either remand or rendition). The proceedings in the trial court must be concluded as if Doe's application had been filed the next business day after this opinion issues. In the event that Doe requires additional time after the issuance of this opinion to prepare for a hearing, she may request an extension of time. See Tex. Fam.Code § 33.003(h).
Justice GONZALES delivered an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Chief Justice PHILLIPS joined, and in which Justice OWEN joined in Parts I and II.
I
Doe is pregnant, unmarried, and under the age of eighteen. Texas law provides that a physician may not perform an abortion on an unemancipated minor unless the physician gives forty-eight hours notice to one of her parents or her guardian, with certain exceptions. See Tex. Fam.Code § 33.002(a). Among those exceptions is the right of the minor to apply to a court for an order authorizing her to consent to an abortion.
There are three possible bases on which a trial court could grant such an application. See Tex. Fam.Code § 33.003(i). The trial court is directed by the Family Code to determine by a preponderance of the evidence:
whether the minor is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed without notification to either of her parents or a managing conservator or guardian, [2] whether notification would not be in the best interest of the minor, or [3] whether notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor.
Id.
Doe's application to the trial court asserted that all three grounds were present, except that she did not assert that notification may lead to her sexual abuse. In accordance with section 33.003(e) of the Family Code, the trial court appointed an attorney to represent Doe and also appointed a guardian ad litem. A hearing was held at which Doe testified in response to questions from her attorney, her ad litem, and the court. Her attorney and guardian ad litem also presented arguments to the court. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court failed to find that any of the three bases in section 33.003(i) for authorizing a minor to consent to an abortion without notifying a parent had been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court rendered judgment denying Doe's application, and the court of appeals affirmed that judgment without issuing an opinion. One justice in the court of appeals noted a dissent.
Doe has appealed to this Court pursuant to section 33.004(f). See Tex. Fam.Code § 33.004(f). She contends that she conclusively established that she is mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion without notifying one of her parents and that notification may lead to her physical or emotional abuse. For the reasons considered below, I disagree.
II
Before undertaking a review of the record, a court must establish the appropriate standard of review. In Doe 1, this Court held that a determination under section 33.003(i) of whether a minor is "mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed without notification to either of her parents" is reviewed for legal and factual sufficiency. In re Jane Doe, 19 S.W.3d 249, 251 (Tex.2000)(Doe 1); Tex. Fam.Code § 33.003(i). A trial court's determination of whether notification may lead to physical or emotional abuse of the minor primarily involves fact finding and is therefore similar to a determination of "mature and sufficiently well informed." See Doe 1, 19 S.W.3d at 251. Accordingly, a determination of whether notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor is reviewed for legal and factual sufficiency. In re Jane Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278 (Tex.2000)(Doe 2).
Because Doe bore the burden of proof, a reviewing court's inquiry is not simply whether there was legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court's judgment. In order for a court to reverse and render judgment in Doe's favor, it must examine the record to determine if there is any evidence that supports the trial court's failure to find for Doe. See Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex.1989). If there is no evidence to support the trial court's failure to make an affirmative finding, then the reviewing court must still determine whether, based on the entire record, "the contrary proposition is established as a matter of. law." Id. Thus, when a party with the burden of proof seeks to establish a right to recover as a matter of law, the evidence.must be such that reasonable minds can draw only one conclusion. See Collora v. Navarro, 574 S.W.2d 65, 68 (Tex.1978). There must be no evidence of probative force to raise a material fact question. See id.
Accordingly, in this case, the Court cannot reverse the court of appeals' judgment unless there was no evidence to support the trial court's failure to find (1) that Doe was mature and sufficiently well informed, or (2) that notification of one of Doe's parents may lead to her physical or emotional abuse. The evidence also must be undisputed and conclusive that Doe was mature and sufficiently well informed or that notification may lead to her abuse.
Ill
I first consider Doe's contention that she was mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion without notifying her parents. In Doe 1 we noted that the two concepts of "mature" and "informed" overlap to some extent but are also distinct. See Doe 1, 19 S.W.3d at 256. During the hearing, Doe testified briefly about her age, educational background, scholastic accomplishments, extracurricular activities, and plans for the future. These are the types of things that we said in Doe 1 weigh on the decision of whether a minor is mature. Id. at 256.
With regard to being "sufficiently well informed," this Court held in Doe 1 that at a minimum, the minor must make three showings. Id. at 256. First, that she has obtained information from a health-care provider about the health risks associated with the abortion and that she understands those risks. Id. at 256. Second, she must show that she understands the alternatives to abortion and their implications. This includes an understanding that the law requires the father to assist in the financial support of his child. See id. at 256. Third, she must show that she is aware of the emotional and psychological aspects of un dergoing an abortion and that she has considered how this decision might affect her family relations. See id. at 256-57. Here, Doe made an attempt to prove she was sufficiently mature and well informed as a ground for waiving notification, but she failed to make the required showings as a matter of law.
Doe testified that she understood the abortion process and is not ready to become a mother. She did not, however, establish that she has obtained information from a health-care provider about the health risks associated with an abortion and that she understood those risks. Nor was there evidence which established as a matter of law that she understood the risks associated with the particular stage of the her pregnancy.
Similarly, there was little evidence that Doe understood the alternatives to abortion and their implications or that she had thoughtfully considered her alternatives, including adoption and keeping the child. Doe testified that she had discussed certain things with her boyfriend, however, she did not indicate that she understood that the law requires a father to assist in the financial support of his child. Finally, Doe's testimony did not establish as a matter of law that Doe was aware of the emotional and psychological aspects of undergoing an abortion. From her testimony it appears that she talked with her boyfriend and with the court appointed guardian ad litem but, there is no testimony that she was aware of the emotional and psychological aspects of undergoing an abortion. While Doe adduced some evidence on the issue, she did not establish as a matter of law that she was mature and sufficiently well informed.
IV
Doe's second contention in this Court is that she established as a matter of law that notification of one of her parents of an impending abortion may lead to her emotional abuse. Before deciding the specific facts of this case, we should attempt to derive some sense of what the Legislature meant by allowing parental bypass if notification may lead to the minor's emotional abuse.
The Legislature has not defined the term "emotional abuse" and this Court has not had the opportunity to interpret the term for purposes of the parental notification statute. As Justice Hecht notes, a definition for abuse appears in Chapter 261 the Family Code, containing some pertinent concepts:
In this Chapter:
(1) 'abuse' includes the following acts or omissions by a person:
(A) mental or emotional injury to a child that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning.
Tex. Fam.Code § 261.001(1)(A). I disagree that section 261.001 was meant to define abuse in all senses the term is used in section 33.003(i). First of all, the statute itself clearly provides that it defines abuse for Chapter 261 purposes, not broadly for the entire Family Code. Chapter 261 is entitled "Investigation of Report of Child Abuse or Neglect," and establishes a duty on professionals and others to report suspected child abuse. See Tex. Fam.Code § 261.101. Secondly, subsection (1) only states that abuse "includes" certain acts and omissions, indicating that even within Chapter 261 the definitions of the word abuse used in that statute are not necessarily exclusive.
Section 261.001's definition of "abuse" is mentioned in Chapter 33 of the Family Code, but only to say that a physician who has reason to believe the minor is subject to sexual or physical abuse must report it. See Tex. Fam.Code § 33.008(a). Chapter 33 of the Family Code has its own section of defined terms. If the Legislature intended the definition of abuse in Chapter 261 to apply generally to Chapter 33, it could have easily said so in the definitions set out at section 33.001.
While I do not believe that the Legislature intended Chapter 261 as the exclusive definition of abuse under section 33.003(i), I take from that definition and similar statutes that emotional abuse contemplates unreasonable conduct causing serious emotional injury. See, e.g., Tex. Hum. Res.Code § 48.002(2) (defining "abuse" for the chapter of the Human Resources Code concerning elderly protective services). Also, the Legislature's placement of emotional abuse alongside physical abuse and sexual abuse in section 33.003® contemplates unreasonable conduct by a third party that causes serious emotional injury. Some degree of familial discord is to be expected whenever an unwed minor notifies her parents or guardian that she is pregnant. The hard question is deciding when the reaction crosses the line from parental interaction, guidance, and discipline into conduct that may lead to serious emotional injury.
Moreover, whether conduct may cause' serious emotional injury depends to some measure on the individuals involved. Conduct that would be extreme and hurtful in one family would not in another. The difficulty in ascertaining the severity of the emotional injury is analogous to our attempts to formulate a standard for mental anguish as an element of damages in a civil lawsuit. In Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434, 444 (Tex.1995), we noted the difficulty of distinguishing between disappointment and severe disappointment, between embarrassment and wounded pride, between anger and indignation. Id. at 444 (holding that compensable mental anguish requires proof of "more than mere worry, anxiety, vexation, embarrassment, or anger"). Likewise with this ground, courts must, for example, distinguish between embarrassment and cruel humiliation. They must distinguish the minor who merely wants to avoid parental disappointment and disapproval from the minor who is at risk of serious emotional injury.
Proof of this ground would not necessarily require testimony from a professional confirming emotional abuse, and could be based solely on the testimony of the minor. But there must be evidence in the record of some character that notification may lead to serious emotional injury. Mere evidence that the minor would be upset or have short term feelings of guilt or anxiety would not establish emotional abuse. At the other extreme, evidence of prior physical or emotional abuse in the home which caused the minor to become severely depressed or self-destructive, if causally linked to notification, would almost certainly establish this ground.
V
I now turn to the facts of this case. In Doe's application for waiver of parental notification form, she placed a checkmark on the ground that "Telling my parent(s), managing conservator or guardian that I want an abortion may lead to physical or emotional abuse of me." At the hearing, Doe did not claim physical abuse and testified that neither parent had physically abused her. But she testified that her father is an alcoholic who, rather than confront the children with his disapproval, would take it out on the mother. Doe ansvyered affirmatively when asked if the father has been physical with the mother. Doe's attorney ad litem did not attempt to get her to elaborate on what she meant by her characterization of her parent's conduct or relate a specific incident, even in the broadest terms. Doe's guardian ad litem asked her if she believed she would be subject to emotional abuse if she had to tell her parents, and she , answered affirmatively. The guardian did not explain what emotional abuse meant in the context of her question or ask the minor to elaborate on her answer.
In discussions with the trial court, Doe's attorney ad litem made clearer statements about the severity of the father's possible conduct and its potential emotional effect on Doe, but it is not clear that the attorney was making representations of fact or arguing for an interpretation of the facts. In any event, the attorney was not sworn as a witness and her statements are not evidence. See Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex.1997) (holding that unsworn statements of attorneys are not normally evidence); United States Gov't, v. Marks, 949 S.W.2d 320, 326 (Tex.1997) (holding that argument of attorney is not evidence but may have significance in certain circumstances).
The scant direct evidence from Doe, combined with reasonable inferences, might be sufficient to support a finding on this issue in favor of Doe, if that were our task. But the trial court failed to find the facts in Doe's favor on issues she had the burden to prove. Before we can overturn a fact finding against Doe and render judgment, we must be able to hold that she conclusively established that notification may lead to emotional abuse. Here the evidence fails to establish vital facts, as a matter of law, because the evidence does not conclusively show what Doe meant when she said she would suffer emotional abuse. As we instructed in Doe 2, merely parroting terms from the statute or language from the forms promulgated by this Court is not sufficient for judicial bypass without testimony regarding the minor's specific circumstances. Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d at 283.
Doe failed to adduce any evidence of her emotional response to her father's conduct aside from her description of that response as emotional abuse. While that statement supports the conclusion that Doe will suffer some adverse emotional response, her statement does not explain what she means by emotional abuse. Without that explanation, the trial judge could reasonably conclude that her emotional response, which she calls emotional abuse, could be less than serious emotional injury. Without other evidence, I cannot say Doe established as a matter of law that her response would be emotional abuse.
Establishing this ground as a matter of law requires only reasonable certainty, not the degree of specificity or explicitness Justice Enoch attributes to my opinion. While it might be tempting to lower the standards for disregarding fact findings due to the sensitive nature of the subject matter, there is no justifiable basis for doing so in these proceedings. Chapter 33 proceedings are non-adversarial and confidential, and an attorney is appointed to help the minor present her evidence to satisfy the standards we announced in Doe 1, 19 S.W.2d at 256 (setting out the showings necessary to conclusively establish that the minor is sufficiently mature and well informed), Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d at 257 (holding that meaningful appellate review requires the trial court to make specific findings about the potential for abuse), and today.
VI
The hearing on Doe's application was held the Tuesday following the Friday on which this Court issued its decision in Doe 1. That decision dealt with factors to be considered in determining whether a minor is "mature and sufficiently well informed to make the decision to have an abortion" within the meaning of section 33.003(i). I would vacate the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings in light of that opinion and the opinions today. See Tex.R.App. P. 60.2(f) (providing that this Court may "vacate the lower court's judgment and remand the case for further proceedings in light of changes in the law"); Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d at 283.
Justice Hecht's dissent takes issue with remanding this matter and the Court's decision to remand in Doe 1 and Doe 2. Justice Hecht's dissent says that in so doing, "the Court has demonstrated its intention to substitute its judgment for the trial court's in every parental notification case that is appealed to us." 19 S.W.3d at 314. That is, of course, not the case. In remanding this and the two other parental notification cases that have come before this Court, the Court has given the trial court and the parties an opportunity to consider opinions of this Court on issues of first impression. It will be the trial courts, not this Court, that will consider the evidence on remand and reach a judgment. More importantly, there is no principled basis in matters of this nature for allowing every minor who comes before a court in a section 38.003 proceeding the opportunity to present their cases with the benefit of the construction of section 33.003 by the highest court in this state except the minors in Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3. As noted in Doe 2, the parental notification and judicial bypass provisions of the Family Code are unique and novel. There is no other procedure in our jurisprudence from which the attorneys and their clients could draw fair notice of the proceeding's requirements. Within a short time this rule will not excuse the failure to comply with the standards announced in Doe 1 and Doe 2. Therefore, a remand to the trial court under Rule.60.2(f) is appropriate.
Justice Owen contends that Doe should not receive the benefit of a remand, concluding that Doe did not attempt to demonstrate that she was sufficiently mature and well informed to make the decision to obtain an abortion. While her proof relating to the three showings required in Doe 1 is abbreviated, it is clear from the record that she presented her application without the benefit of that opinion's instruction. Accordingly, I concur with the Court's judgment to set aside the court of appeals' judgment and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
Justice ENOCH filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, in which Justice BAKER, Justice HANKINSON, and Justice O'NEILL joined.
Justice HECHT filed a dissenting opinion.
Justice OWEN filed a dissenting opinion.
Justice ABBOTT filed a dissenting opinion.
Justice ENOCH, joined by Justice BAKER, Justice HANKINSON, and Justice O'NEILL, concurring and dissenting.
We all apparently agree that the Legislature unambiguously expressed an intent to encourage parental involvement in their child's decision to terminate her pregnancy. It also expressed an intent to protect children from the lasting and devastating consequences of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse. Where I disagree with my Colleagues is in my view that when the Legislature made the potential for abuse an exception to parental notification, it balanced these respective policy considerations. That balance is reflected in the Legislature's decision that when notice to the parents "may lead to the minor's . emotional abuse," the notice "shall " be waived.
This case involves family violence — specifically, spousal abuse. If this were a case where the credibility of the minor were in issue, I could perhaps understand the reluctance of the Court to conclude that the abuse exception had been met as a matter of law in this case. I could perhaps also understand the position of my Colleagues who would affirm the trial court's denial outright. But the credibility of the minor isn't in issue — the trial court believed the minor. The trial court simply determined that, on balance, the abuse would be worse if the minor didn't tell her parents. Because under no stretch can I read the law as allowing the trial court to consider the relative severity of the abuses, I would reverse the lower courts' judgments and grant the minor's application. Therefore, I dissent. Under the circum stances of this case, with six Justices voting to set aside the judgments, but only four Justices voting to render judgment, Twyman v. Twyman dictates that the matter be remanded and compels my concurrence in the judgment.
I fully embrace that "[a] minor's interests in these circumstances are not only immediate; they are profound and long-term." I know that "a minor's concealment from her parents of so profound a decision, like the decision itself, may have lifelong, and unforeseen, consequences." And I, too, believe that parents have "fundamental, constitutional rights to raise their children" and "to provide children guidance in making difficult decisions." Like the Legislature, I also recognize the severe and devastating consequences of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Unlike other Members of this Court, I think it is inappropriate for this Court to usurp the Legislative function by reconsidering the relative weight given by the Legislature to these policy considerations and then placing the Court's thumb on the scale.
Furthermore, under the current statutory scheme, it is highly unrealistic and inappropriate for the courts to differentiate among the perceived degrees or types of abuse that may occur or to consider whether the abuse would occur anyway so that one more instance doesn't matter. Abuse is abuse; it is neither to be trifled with nor its severity to be second guessed. Doe unequivocally testified that her father is an alcoholic, that in the past he has gotten intoxicated, overreacted, and taken anger over the children out on her mother and "become physical" with her mother. But Justice Hecht, Justice Owen, and Justice Gonzales begin by questioning what the minor meant by "physical." Justice Gonzales would also require proof of "serious emotional injury" on top of the evidence already in this case, apparently because "[c]onduet that would be extreme and hurtful in one family would not in another." Justice Hecht and Justice Owen would go further and require Doe to demonstrate that the abuse equated to physical and sexual abuse and resulted in "material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning." And all three would require her to describe specific instances of abuse. Additionally, Justice Hecht demands that Doe detail "when [the abuse] could occur, or over what issues, or how severe it was, or how it affected her mother." (Members of this Court will no doubt reveal these details irrespective of admonitions that the record should remain confidential. ) This sort of parsing among types or degrees of abuse is not indicated anywhere in the statute.
To reach their conclusion, Justice Hecht, Justice Owen, and Justice Gonzales all rely, more or less, on Chapter 261 of the Texas Family Code. Chapter 261 of the Family Code is entitled "Investigation of Report of Child Abuse or Neglect." It mandates that certain persons report suspected abuse or neglect to speci fied reporting agencies, including law enforcement agencies. Section 33.008 of the parental notification statute requires a physician to report suspected physical and sexual abuse to the appropriate authorities, and refers to a definition in section 261.001. But section 33.008 doesn't rely on section 261.001 to define physical or sexual abuse, it refers to section 261.001 only to define a "person responsible for the minor's care, custody, or welfare." There just isn't any indication in Chapter 33 that the "abuse" definitions in Chapter 261 control a trial court's inquiry under section 33.003(i).
Contrary to my Colleagues' assertions, the stronger argument is that the Legislature didn't intend for a minor to have to prove "mental or emotional injury . that results in an observable and material impairment in the child's growth, development, or psychological functioning" to obtain a parental notification waiver. For had the Legislature intended that result, Justice Hecht would not have had to read all the way to section 33.008 to find it. Instead, the relevant part of the parental notification statute, section 33.003(i), would read "If the court finds that . notification may lead to physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of the minor, as defíned by section 261.001 . " But it doesn't.
Everyone seems to agree that evidence that parental notification will likely lead to physical abuse of another in the minor's household is at least some evidence that notification "may lead to . emotional abuse of the minor." That is precisely what the minor testified to in this case, and that is precisely what the trial court believed. Doe testified that, in the past, her father has blamed her mother for problems he has had with his children and has physically abused her mother as a result. Doe also testified that she does not want to tell her mother about her decision to have an abortion because her mother would tell her father and,her father would become angry and physically take it out on her mother.- Although Justice Owen suggests that the trial court need not "assume" that Doe's mother would tell her father, Doe's testimony was unequivocal — her mother will tell her father. And the trial court must have believed her because the trial court concluded that Doe's mother would be abused whether her father found out about her circumstances now or later.
It further troubles me that Members of this Court permit the trial court to pile one presumption upon another. First, the trial court presumed that Doe's parents would inevitably find out if Doe has an abortion, and then it presumed that the abuse would be worse if the parents found out after the fact. The trial court itself first raised the issue of whether Doe's parents would find out by simply stating it as a fact, saying, "You know, you realize that even if I give you permission that eventually [your mother] will find out?" Then the trial court denied waiver of parental notification because on balance it presumed the abuse would not be so bad if it happened before Doe had an abortion.
Indeed, the apparent impossibility of a minor ever proving that notification may lead to emotional abuse is exemplified in the following passage contained in Justice Hecht's opinion today: "The closest Doe came to stating that her father had physically abused her mother was in the following exchange:
[By Doe's attorney]: One of the reasons she's here is to avoid that, having to witness it's her fault that her mother becomes physically abused by her father in a drunken rage because of something that she got into.
THE COURT: Apparently, that happens, right? So other things trigger that off, right?
DOE: Yes."
In light of the Legislature's pronouncement that if "notification may lead to . emotional abuse of the minor" the trial court "shall enter an order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance of the abortion without notification to either of her parents," how can this not be enough? Setting aside for the moment that the minor confirmed in her own words the truth of her attorney's statement, it is not enough to say that the attorney's words are not evidence. Even Justice Hecht has written that the attorney's words have "special significance."
The Legislature has balanced the admittedly strong societal interest in having parents guide the decisions of their children with the equally strong societal interest in prohibiting child abuse. It is a usurpation of that action for this Court to interject itself in that process by reweighing these interests, essentially holding that regardless of the language used in the statute, abuse should be tolerated in the name of parental rights — just not too much. I respectfully dissent.
. Consistent with the parental notification statutes' confidentiality requirements, and with the practice recommended by the Court in Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d at 280, I paraphrase rather than quote Doe's testimony. See Tex. Fam.Code § 33.003(k).
. Again, I note that Doe's testimony is paraphrased. See supra, 19 S.W.3d at 302 n. 1.
. See Tex. Fam.Code § 33.002.
. See Tex. Fam.Code § 33.003(i).
. Tex. Fam.Code § 33.003(i)(emphasis added).
. 855 S.W.2d 619 (Tex.1993).
. In re Jane Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d 278 (Tex.2000) (Hecht, J., dissenting).
. In re Jane Doe 1, 19 S.W.3d 249 (Tex.2000) (Hecht, J., dissenting).
. Id. at 317-18 (Hecht, J., dissenting).
. Id. at 276 (Hecht, J., dissenting).
. 19 S.W.3d at 310.
. 19 S.W.3d at 304.
. 19 S.W.3d at 304.
. 19 S.W.3d at 315.
. 19 S.W.3d at 315.
. See Tex. Fam.Code § 33.003(k); Texas Parental Notification Rules and Forms, Rule Ineffective January 1, 2000); but see In re Jane Doe, 19 S.W.3d at 266 (Tex.2000)(HECHT, j., dissenting); In re Jane Doe 2, 19 S.W.3d at 285 (Tex.2000) (Hecht, j., dissenting); In re Jane Doe 3, 19 S.W.3d at 309 (Tex.2000) (Hecht, j., dissenting).
. Tex. Fam.Code § 33.008.
. Tex. Fam.Code § 33.008; see also Tex. Fam. Codes 261.001(5).
. 19 S.W.3d 315-16, citing Tex. Fam.Code § 261.001(1)(a).
. Tex. Fam.Code § 33.003(i).
. 19 S.W.3d at 312 (emphasis added).
. Tex. Fam.Code § 33.003(i)(emphasis added).
. Id. (emphasis added).
. 19 S.W.3d at 301 (Gonzales, J., concurring).
. United States Government v. Marks, 949 S.W.2d 320, 326 (Tex.1997); see also Banda v. Garcia, 955 S.W.2d 270, 272 (Tex.1997).