Opinion ID: 1754160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Statutory Proof Standard

Text: In creating the bypass procedure, the Legislature delegated no authority to the courts to determine the grounds upon which to grant a bypass. Rather, it specifically enumerated the grounds that, if shown, require the courts to grant a parental notification waiver. Neither did the Legislature give courts authority to decide the level of proof a minor must show to prove that she is entitled to a bypass. And although the Legislature could have chosen to impose a higher standard of proof, such as by requiring the minor to establish the statutory requisites by clear and convincing proof or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it did not do so. Instead, it set the level of proof at the lower preponderance of the evidence standard. [3] See TEX. FAM.CODE § 33.003(i). The importance of the evidentiary burden is self-evident. As amicus curiae the Texas Coalition for Parents' Rights recognizes: Evidentiary standards express the degree of certainty in the outcome that the factfinder must have. Because interests of differing constitutional and societal value come before courts, differing degrees of certainty are required. (Citations omitted). The Texas Coalition urges this Court to apply a burden of proof similar to the clear and convincing standard the Nebraska Supreme Court adopted in In re Petition of Anonymous 1, 251 Neb. 424, 558 N.W.2d 784, 787 (1997). But the Nebraska court was free to adopt a heightened burden of proof because the Nebraska legislature did not articulate a proof standard. Our Legislature mandated a proof standard. For this Court to impose a standard different than that our Legislature chose would usurp the legislative function and amount to judicial activism.