Opinion ID: 424713
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Best Interests Provision

Text: 24 The statute provides that [n]otice under this section shall be waived by the juvenile court if the court finds that the minor is mature enough to make the abortion decision independently or that notification would not be in the minor's best interests. The appellants contend that this provision is unconstitutional because it allegedly allows the juvenile court to deny waiver of notice for a concededly mature minor if the court finds that notice would be in the child's best interests. 25 The state disputes this interpretation, contending that the statute provides that a court can waive notification even if the minor is found to be immature if the notification would not be in the minor's best interests. The state says that the juvenile court may not deny waiver for a mature minor on the basis that notification would be in the minor's best interests. 26 We note, first, the requirement that, [w]here fairly possible, courts should construe a statute to avoid a danger of unconstitutionality. Planned Parenthood Association v. Ashcroft, 103 S.Ct. at 2526 (opinion of Powell, J.). If the statute did provide what the appellants contend it does, it would be unconstitutional. [T]he State must provide an alternative procedure whereby a pregnant minor may demonstrate that she is sufficiently mature to make the abortion decision herself or that, despite her immaturity, an abortion would be in her best interests. City of Akron, 103 S.Ct. at 2498 (emphasis added). 27 We are persuaded that the appellants' interpretation of the statute is simply incorrect. The words or that notification would not be in the minor's best interests are a grant of authority to the juvenile court to waive notification despite the minor's immaturity if it is in the minor's best interests not to notify the parents. The statute does not--and constitutionally cannot--give the juvenile court the authority to refuse to waive notification despite a finding that the minor is mature. For us to interpret the language as the appellants suggest would be to go out of our way to find an unconstitutional construction of the statute.