Case 1:18-cv-00026 Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/18 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

JANE DOE, 
Petitioner, 


v. Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-26

OFFICE OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT, 
Respondent. 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On March 8, 2018, this Court held an ex parte hearing with Jane Doe (hereafter
??Petitioner?) for the sole purpose of determining whether Petitioner desired to pursue a hearing
under TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. 33.003 (said statute is entitled ?Judicial Approval?, but shall
hereafter be referred to as a ?judicial bypass The Court?s con?dential ex parte
hearing was conducted in chambers with the assistance of a court reporter and court interpreter.
After a detailed discussion with Petitioner, this Court concluded that Petitioner no longer was
interested in an abortion, which thus rendered the option of a judicial bypass hearing as moot.

Therefore, this Court will dismiss the instant matter.

However, this Court wishes to address its concern with the time delay caused by the
Of?ce of Refugee Resettlement (hereafter As a result of refusal to transport
Petitioner to the judicial bypass hearing scheduled for February 12, 2018, Petitioner?s day in
court was delayed twenty-four days. In the event Petitioner had wished to pursue an abortion,

said abortion would have been more dangerous to the health of Petitioner with each passing day.

The abortion debate is not at issue in a judicial bypass hearing. The primary purpose of

said hearing is obtaining a judicial order allowing waiver of parental notice and waiver of

 

pregnant minor may ?le an application for a court order authorizing the minor to consent to the performance of
an abortion without noti?cation to and consent of a parent, managing conservator, or guardian.? Tex. Fam. Code
Ann. 

Case Document 36 Filed in TXSD on 03/12/18 Page 2 of 2

parental consent, if the subject individual can prove by clear and convincing evidence the

necessary elements of consent and need.2

It should be obvious that the implementation and enforcement of a Texas Family Code
statute is within the jurisdiction of the Texas state courts, and further, that federal courts should
avoid family law issues. It should further be obvious that the issue of consent is an inherent
factor of a judicial bypass hearing. The subject state statute does not apply in a scenario where a
minor does not want an abortion. In said hypothetical scenario, the minor would be unable to
meet the burden of proof requirements of the statute; and furthermore, there would be no
necessity for the minor to obtain a waiver of parental notice and consent. In summary, the issue
of Petitioner?s consent would have been resolved without delay by the state court if the original

judicial bypass hearing had proceeded February 12, 2018.

It is hereby ORDERED that the instant matter is hereby DISMISSED. The Clerk of the
Court is hereby ORDERED to close the case.

Signed on this I 2 4* day of 2018.

8/

Rola Olver'c:
Un1 ed States District dge

 

 

2 ?The court shall determine by clear and convincing evidence . . . whether: (1) the minor is mature and suf?ciently
well informed to make the decision to have an abortion performed without noti?cation to or consent of a parent,
managing conservator, or guardian; or (2) the noti?cation and attempt to obtain consent would not be in the best
interest of the minor.? Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 33.0030).

2