State in Interest of AVP
Louisiana Court of Appeal
108 So. 3d 1204 (2013)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Seventeen-year-old AVP (plaintiff), an intelligent, college-bound high-school senior who had been awarded a merit scholarship and who was largely self-supporting, petitioned a juvenile court for an order authorizing her to have an abortion without parental consent. The court immediately appointed counsel for AVP and held a hearing on her petition that day. At the hearing, at which AVP was the only witness, AVP testified that neither her father nor her boyfriend remained a presence in her life. AVP characterized her mother as an emotionally unstable alcoholic with whom AVP had a strained relationship. According to AVP, the mother had thrown AVP’s sister out of their house when the sister became pregnant, and AVP feared a similar reaction if her mother learned of AVP’s pregnancy. AVP testified that after researching her options and receiving counseling from friends and abortion-clinic staff, she had concluded that she was neither emotionally nor financially ready to care for a child, that the pregnancy would cause her to lose her scholarship, and that adoption was neither a practical nor a desirable option. When the juvenile court denied AVP’s petition, AVP appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, which, as required by statute, conducted a de novo hearing within 48 hours.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Windhorst, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
