Matter of Smith

Orth, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On 26 September 1972 the Circuit Court for Kent County sitting as a juvenile court (the Juvenile Court) adjudged that Cindy Lou Smith (appellant) was a child in need of supervision and ordered that: (1) she be placed in the custody of her mother under the supervision of the Department of Juvenile Services subject to the further order of the Juvenile Court; (2) as a “Special Condition”, she “shall obey her Mother in submitting to the medical procedures at Easton Memorial Hospital to terminate her pregnancy”, declaring “that the request and instructions from her Mother shall be sufficient authority for any medical doctor or hospital to provide this treatment”; (3) she “shall be retained by the Sheriff of Kent County, who shall deliver her to Easton Memorial Hospital, at the request of her mother.” Appellant noted an appeal the same day and the Juvenile Court stayed its order pending a hearing on the appeal. We heard the appeal on 27 September. The same day we affirmed the adjudication that appellant was a child in need of supervision and affirmed that part of the order designated above as (1).

We reversed those parts of the order designated above as parts (2) and (3). Mandate was issued forthwith. We now state the reasons for our decision. (1) Appellant, 16 years of age, was brought before the Juvenile Court on the petition of her mother, Mary ²¹³ Esther Cain. 1 Art. 26, §§ 70-2 and 70-6; Maryland Rules 901, 902, 903.

The petition, filed 21 September 1972, alleged that appellant was a child in need of supervision for the reason that on “September 14, 1972 * * * [she] did leave school without consent of her parent and stayed away from school until September 21, 1972.” It seems that the petition was amended to include as a further reason “that she is pregnant.” Rule 905. The same day the court authorized that she be placed in detention and directed the Sheriff, of Kent County to keep her in his custody pending further hearing. Code, Art. 26, §§ 70-11 and 70-12. An adjudicatory hearing was held on 25 September.

Code, Art. 26, § 70-17; Rule 912. Appellant’s mother testified that Cindy was 16 years of age. She was asked what was the relationship between Cindy and Douglas Earl Nicholson and replied: “I really didn’t think they were seeing one another.” She explained that “Cindy was punished for a whole month and she wasn’t allowed out even on weekends, and that’s because of Doug. * * * She was to go to the movies, and I found out the next day she didn’t go to the movies at all, and she happened to be with Doug. And when I questioned her she said she had went to the movies, but I found out she didn’t, so I punished her for a month.” On 14 September Mrs. Cain received a telephone call from Cindy’s school and was told that Cindy “had signed herself out, that she had a doctor’s appointment.” Mrs. Cain then telephoned Doug’s mother. “I told her I didn’t think the kids were in school, that Mr. Newman 2 had just called me, but Mr. Newman couldn’t find out whether Douglas was in school or not.” She next saw Cindy a week later at the jail.

It was adduced that Cindy had run away a year before with Doug and Mrs. Cain had forbidden her to see him. It was when she found out they were still dating that she punished Cindy. Mrs. Cain ²¹⁴ learned on 11 September that Cindy was pregnant. Cindy said Doug was the father.

Mrs. Cain told her daughter that “I would like for her to have an abortion.” On cross-examination it appeared that Mrs. Cain had been told by her sister-in-law that Cindy had made an appointment with a Doctor Farr. Mrs. Cain went to the doctor’s office and met Cindy there. The doctor said Cindy was """pregnant. Mrs. Cain and the Doctor and Cindy discussed an abortion, and Cindy said she did not want one.

Mrs. Cain said: “I talked to Cindy and I didn’t seem to be getting anywhere one way or another. So I called the Health Center and I asked for someone there to talk to her, and I took her in there on a Wednesday morning [13 September] at 10:30. * * * Mrs. Betty Davis talked to her for about an hour. I was there during half the conversation and then Mrs. Davis talked to her by herself. * * * When we left the building I told Cindy I had to do some shopping, so I went to Leggett’s and she wanted to go in and I asked her to sit in the car and think. And I was gone about 45 minutes and when I "came back and started to go to Rock Hall she told me to call Dr. Farr, that she had decided to have an abortion.” Mrs. Cain took “steps to arrange” for Cindy to have an abortion.

Cindy testified that she first met Douglas Earl Nicholson about two years ago and was in love with him. Dr. Farr told her she was pregnant. She said she did not want to be aborted. She was asked her reasons and objection to the question was sustained, the court stating: “I think that is pretty well established anyway, Mr. Parks [appellant’s counsel].

The reason for her running away she says is because she didn’t want an abortion. You can argue that, whether you think there is some basis in the law giving a child the right to run away from home because she is pregnant and doesn’t want an abortion. I think the facts are established that she is pregnant and that she ran away from ²¹⁵ home because she didn’t want an abortion. I think we have enough on that.” Cindy said there was no other reason for her leaving home than that she didn’t want an abortion.

When she found out she was pregnant she and Doug planned to get married. When they left on 14 September two friends took them to Centreville and then they hitchhiked to Kent-more Park. They spent the night at “a couple of friends’ house.” On Monday morning they hitchhiked to Tolchester and remained until the police picked them up. On cross-examination she said Doug “got her pregnant” and on redirect she reiterated that the only reason she ran away was “because me arid Dougie didn’t want to have an abortion.” Douglas Earl Nicholson testified that he was also 16 years of age, his date of birth being 12 July 1956.

His version of what happened on 14 September and the days following until the police arrived was the same as that of Cindy, and his reason for running away was the same. “Because Cindy’s mother wanted her to have an abortion and Cindy and I didn’t want for her to get an abortion. * * * Well we figured that if we stayed away long enough so that she couldn’t get an abortion then her mother couldn’t make her get an abortion.” He gave another reason. “Well, we figured — we went to Centreville to see if we could get married and they said we couldn’t.” He had asked his parents to let him marry Cindy and “they said they wouldn’t sign.” He said he was the father of Cindy’s “child-to-be.” The court found that Cindy Lou Smith was a child in need of supervision within the contemplation of the Juvenile Causes Act. A child is a person who has not attained 18 years of age. Code, Art. 26, § 70-1 (c). Section 70-1 (i) states that a child in need of supervision means: “(1) Subject to compulsory school attendance who is habitually and without justification truant from school; (2) Without substantial fault on the part of ²¹⁶ his parents, guardian, or other custodian, who is habitually disobedient, ungovernable, and beyond their control.

(3) Who so deports himself as to injure or endanger himself or others; or (4) Who has committed an offense applicable only to children; and (5) Requires guidance, treatment, or rehabilitation.” That a child is in need of supervision must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. Code, Art. 26, § 70-18 (c). It was not disputed that Cindy was a “child” within the definition of the Act and that she was pregnant as alleged in the petition. We think the evidence was sufficient in law to show that Cindy deported herself so as to endanger herself.

Not only had she become pregnant but she had twice run away from home. The last time she hitchhiked on the highways with a 16 year old boy, first from Centreville to Kentmore Park where they spent the night with friends, and then to Tolchester. Where they spent the nights in Tolchester until they were found by the police is not clear. Having so deported herself it is patent that this 16 year old, pregnant, unmarried girl required guidance and treatment, particularly in light of a declared purpose of the Juvenile Causes Act “to provide for the care, protection and wholesome mental and physical development” of children coming within its provisions.

Code, Art. 26, § 70 (1). The evidence being legally sufficient to prove that Cindy Lou Smith was a child in need of supervision as alleged in the petition, the Juvenile Court was not clearly wrong in its judgment that she was. Rule 1086. Therefore we affirmed the determination that Cindy Lou Smith was a child in need of supervision.

(2) A disposition hearing followed hard on the heels of the adjudicatory hearing. Code, Art. 26, § 70-17; Rule ²¹⁷ 913. Code, Art. 26, § 70-19 (a) authorizes the court to make such disposition of a child found in need of supervision as most suited to the physical, mental and moral welfare of the child. On the evidence adduced we see no abuse of this discretion in the placing of Cindy in the custody of her mother, under the supervision of the Department of Juvenile Services subject to the further order of the court.

Therefore we affirmed the order of the Juvenile Court in that respect. (3) It was the opinion of the Judge below that a 16 year old child did not have “any particular and special rights in derogation of their parents * * * with respect to the abortion law and the medical laws.” He continued: “It was to encourage children not to have unplanned for families, and it was to encourage children to go to doctors, and hospitals or clinics to handle the venereal disease problem, which is becoming an ever-growing problem. It seems to me it is philosophy. I can’t read into it they have a right to consent and therefore they have a right to object, because the philosophy back of it is to get medical assistance to the people and prevent these unfortunate social consequences, of early, promiscuous sexual conduct on the part of young people who are totally incapable of dealing with these problems.” The Judge stated that he was not operating under Code 43, subtitle “Abortion”, but under Art. 26, the Juvenile Causes Act.

He said: “I think that the Court can certainly support parents in doing what they think is best for the child. If Mrs. Cain thinks it is best for her child to have some medical procedure to terminate the pregnancy — if she withheld it and the Court found it was against the interest ²¹⁸ of the child the Court could order it, in my opinion. We don’t have the mother refusing the medical procedure, we have her desiring the medical procedure and the daughter refusing to obey her mother’s orders.” The court then recalled the mother to ascertain “what her desires are and what the medical possibilities are.” The transcript of her testimony reads in relevant part: “Questions by Mr. Cooper [State’s Attorney] : Q. Now, in contemplation of your daughter having an abortion, have you made any arrangements with any doctors? A. Yes.

Q. What arrangements have you made? A. She is supposed to be at Easton on Wednesday morning. Q. Who is her doctor? A. I can’t remember his name.

I think it is Johnson, I am not sure. Judge Rasin: By Easton do you mean the Easton Memorial Hospital? A. Yes. Q. At Easton Memorial Hospital in Easton, Md.?

What time? A. I can’t remember. One was 10:30.1 think this was 10:45. Q. And the abortion was to be performed at that time?

A. Yes. Judge Rasin: Who made those arrangements? Through Dr. Farr? A. No, I made them.

Judge Rasin: And it is still your desire that Cindy Lou be aborted of this pregnancy? A. Yes sir. Judge Rasin: When you talked with Dr. Farr you say it was on the 11th of September? A. It was Monday a week ago. ²¹⁹ Judge Rasin: And Dr. Farr examined Cindy Lou?

A. Yes. Questions by Mr. Parks [appellant’s counsel] : Q. Do you know whether or not, within your knowledge, the Easton Memorial Hospital Board has met and approved her having an abortion ? A. No, I don’t. Q. Do you know whether any other doctor has examined her other than Dr. Farr?

A. I don’t think so. Q. Do you know whether or not she has seen any psychiatrist or psychologist? A. Not to my knowledge she hasn’t. Q. Yet the abortion is planned for the 27th, which is two days from now?

A. Yes sir. If it