In re Petition of Anonymous 3

evidence that it is in the best interests of the four minor chil-
dren that Yolanda’s parental rights be terminated. Given the
evidence, we reject Yolanda’s assignment of error in which
she claimed that the evidence was insufficient to terminate her
parental rights under § 43-292(2).
CONCLUSION
We reject Yolanda’s constitutional challenge to § 43-292(2)
and conclude that the evidence was sufficient to terminate
Yolanda’s parental rights to the four children at issue under
§ 43-292(2). We therefore affirm the order of the juvenile court
terminating the parental rights of Yolanda to the four children
in this case.
A ffirmed.
in re P etition of A nonymous 3, A minor .
782 N.W.2d 591
Filed May 21, 2010. 	No. S-33-100006.
1. Abortion: Minors: Judgments: Appeal and Error. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-6904(6)
(Reissue 2009) provides that the Supreme Court hears this appeal de novo on the
record. Accordingly, the court reappraises the evidence as presented by the record
and reaches its own independent conclusions with respect to the matters at issue.
2. Abortion: Minors: Notice: Waiver. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-6903 (Reissue 2009)
may authorize a waiver of the parental notification requirement if the court
determines that the “pregnant woman” is mature and capable of giving informed
consent to the proposed abortion or if it determines that the performance of an
abortion without notification would be in her best interests.
3. Abortion: Minors: Proof. In a proceeding brought under the provisions of Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 71-6901 et seq. (Reissue 2009), the burden of proof on all issues rests
with the petitioner, and such burden must be established by clear and convinc-
ing evidence.
4. Minors: Emancipation: Words and Phrases. Emancipation means the freeing
of the child from the care, custody, control, and service of his or her parents.
5. Minors: Emancipation: Proof. The emancipation of a minor may be proved by
circumstantial evidence or may be implied from the conduct of the parties.
6. Minors: Emancipation. Either acts solely initiated and performed by a minor
child or acts of a parent inconsistent with the performance of parental obligations
may effectuate a minor’s emancipation.
7. ____: ____. Where a minor is emancipated, the parental notification statutes
are inapplicable.
912 	279 NEbRASkA REpORTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:48 AM CST

Appeal from the District Court for Dakota County: WilliAm
BinkArd, Judge. Reversed and vacated.
Cindy Weber-blair and Lori Ubbinga for petitioner.
H eAvicAn, 	c.J., 	WrigHt, 	connolly, 	gerrArd, 	stePHAn,
mccormAck, and miller-lermAn, JJ.
P er curiAm.
NATURE OF CASE
This proceeding was instituted under the provisions of Neb.
Rev. Stat. § 71-6901 et seq. (Reissue 2009) by petitioner, who
will be 18 years old in less than 2 months, seeking authoriza-
tion for her physician to perform an abortion without prior
notification to a parent or guardian. The district court denied
her request, and pursuant to the expedited procedures outlined
in § 71-6904, she appeals to this court.
The issue in this case is not whether petitioner can obtain
an abortion,1 but whether, pursuant to § 71-6902, a parent must
be notified 48 hours before the abortion is performed. parental
notification is required under § 71-6902 where the pregnant
woman is “an unemancipated woman under eighteen years of
age,”2 unless notification is waived by a court under § 71-6903
or not required under § 71-6906. We determine that petitioner
is an emancipated woman and that the notification require-
ments of § 71-6902 do not apply. We reverse and vacate the
judgment of the district court.
bACkGROUND
petitioner currently lives with her boyfriend of 2 years and
their 2-month-old son. She will turn 18 in less than 2 months.
She testified that she has lived primarily with her boyfriend
since their son was born, although, until recently, she would
also stay with her mother a few days a week.
petitioner has graduated from high school and has enrolled
in college. She testified that she will move into her own
1 See Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 96 S. Ct.
2831, 49 L. Ed. 2d 788 (1976).
2 § 71-6901(5).
IN RE pETITION OF ANONYMOUS 3 	913
Cite as 279 Neb. 912

apartment this summer with the assistance of a local service
organization. She testified that she does not expect her boy-
friend to live with her there. She works two jobs, owns a
vehicle, and has a cellular telephone. She pays for her own
gas, food, and other personal bills. She also pays for expenses
incurred in raising her son and helps her boyfriend pay the bills
for the apartment.
petitioner does not know her father, and her mother does not
help support her. To the contrary, petitioner testified that her
mother demands money from her whenever the mother needs
it. In the past, her mother has simply taken all the money out of
a shared checking account into which petitioner had deposited
her earnings.
petitioner and her mother have a strained relationship.
petitioner explained that her mother’s new boyfriend does not
like her. Also, when petitioner’s mother learned of her first
pregnancy, her mother became very angry and did not speak to
petitioner until after the birth of her son. petitioner stated that,
even now, her mother mostly yells at her and that they do not
speak often.
petitioner described in detail for the court how she and
her boyfriend had considered all their options and the pos-
sible long-term and short-term consequences before making
the decision to have an abortion. petitioner explained that she
had decided not to tell her mother about the pregnancy because
she did not believe her mother would provide any support
or guidance. petitioner stated that if her mother knew about
this pregnancy, she would continue to treat her poorly, and
“[p]robably worse.”
The hearing was conducted on April 28, 2010, during which
the court and an attorney representing petitioner asked her
questions. The court filed its written findings of fact and con-
clusions of law on April 30, 2010. The district court denied
petitioner’s request for a waiver of parental notification. The
court concluded that petitioner was not mature or capable of
giving informed consent. It also determined that an abortion
without parental notification was not in her best interests.
The court found petitioner had “some minimal level of
experience at entry level employment,” living away from
914 	279 NEbRASkA REpORTS

home, and handling her own finances. The court noted that
petitioner was not paying rent at her boyfriend’s apartment,
and thus, it concluded that she was not able to provide for her
own residence. The court noted that petitioner did not detail
the amount of income she earns or how she apportions and
applies her income to her various living expenses. We note that
at the hearing, she was not asked to do so. The court stated
that although petitioner expressed the desire to be an “inde-
pendent person,” “[s]he did not elucidate how she intended to
attain that particular status as a single, 17-year-old mother of
a two month old baby,” and, to the contrary, had “made some
arrangements toward being dependent on agencies and assist-
ance from others.”
The petition for waiver was denied. petitioner appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1] Section 71-6904(6) provides that we hear this appeal de
novo on the record. Accordingly, we reappraise the evidence as
presented by the record and reach our own independent conclu-
sions with respect to the matters at issue.3
ANALYSIS
[2] A “[p]regnant woman” is defined in § 71-6901(5) as an
“unemancipated woman under eighteen years of age who is
pregnant.” Under § 71-6902, no abortion shall be performed
upon a “pregnant woman” until at least 48 hours after written
notice to a parent of the pending abortion. Section 71-6903 may
authorize a waiver of the parental notification requirement if
the court determines that the “pregnant woman” is mature and
capable of giving informed consent to the proposed abortion
or if it determines that the performance of an abortion without
notification would be in her best interests.4 As an initial mat-
ter, we must determine if the parental notification requirements
in § 71-6901 et seq. apply to petitioner. because we conclude
that petitioner is emancipated, she is not a “pregnant woman”
3 See, In re Petition of Anonymous 2, 253 Neb. 485, 570 N.W.2d 836 (1997);
In re Petition of Anonymous 1, 251 Neb. 424, 558 N.W.2d 784 (1997).
4 In re Petition of Anonymous 2, supra note 3.
IN RE pETITION OF ANONYMOUS 3 	915
Cite as 279 Neb. 912

as defined by § 71-6901(5) of the parental notification statutes.
Therefore, parental notification is not required if petitioner
elects to have an abortion.
[3-5] In a proceeding brought under the provisions of
§ 71-6901 et seq., the burden of proof on all issues rests with
the petitioner, and such burden must be established by clear
and convincing evidence.5 petitioner will be 18 years old in
less than 2 months, and based on the record before us, which is
all we may consider, it is clear that petitioner is emancipated.
Emancipation means the freeing of the child from the care,
custody, control, and service of his or her parents.6 The eman-
cipation of a minor may be proved by circumstantial evidence
or may be implied from the conduct of the parties.7
[6] Either acts solely initiated and performed by a minor
child or acts of a parent inconsistent with the performance of
parental obligations may effectuate a minor’s emancipation.8
In Accent Service Co., Inc. v. Ebsen,9 we concluded that the
minor was emancipated when he had departed from the fam-
ily home with parental consent after a fight with his mother,
taken his personal belongings with him, and thereafter fur-
nished his own support and received nothing from his parent.
In Wulff v. Wulff,10 we concluded that giving birth may also
be a factor to be considered in the determination of whether
a minor has achieved emancipation, although that factor alone
is not dispositive. Other courts have determined that a minor
is emancipated when she has borne a child and is living away
from her parents in a conjugal relationship with the father of
her child.11
5 Id.
6 See Palagi v. Palagi, 10 Neb. App. 231, 627 N.W.2d 765 (2001).
7 See Accent Service Co., Inc. v. Ebsen, 209 Neb. 94, 306 N.W.2d 575
(1981).
8 See, 67A C.J.S. Parent and Child § 23 (2002); Annot., 55 A.L.R.5th 557
(1998).
9 Accent Service Co., Inc. v. Ebsen, supra note 7.
10 Wulff v. Wulff, 243 Neb. 616, 500 N.W.2d 845 (1993).
11 55 A.L.R.5th, supra note 8.
916 	279 NEbRASkA REpORTS

The evidence is clear and convincing that petitioner is in
no manner dependent on a parent or guardian. petitioner holds
employment that pays her own bills, as well as the bills she
incurs in the care of her 2-month-old son. petitioner is not cur-
rently living with her mother and has no intention of returning
to live with her mother. She currently lives with her boyfriend
and their son as an independent family unit. petitioner stated
that her mother has not provided her with any support; instead,
she has occasionally given her mother financial assistance.
petitioner makes her own decisions regarding herself and the
care of her son.
petitioner’s independence is not diminished because she has
sought assistance from her boyfriend or from outside organiza-
tions in her pursuit of a college education and a better life. To
the contrary, this shows that, without parental guidance, peti-
tioner is able to identify and find other resources and solutions
to the difficulties inherent in her current situation. Courts have
frequently observed that a minor’s receipt of public assistance
in the minor’s own name evidences emancipation.12
[7] It is not for this court to determine the correctness of
petitioner’s decision13; because petitioner is emancipated, the
parental notification statutes are inapplicable. petitioner has
demonstrated that the parental ties of care and support between
petitioner and her mother have been broken, and petitioner is
living an independent life. She is an emancipated woman, and
as such is not required to notify her mother of her decision to
have an abortion.
CONCLUSION
We reverse and vacate the judgment of the district court.
For the reasons stated above, we conclude that petitioner is
emancipated and, therefore, does not fall within the parental
notification statutes.
reversed And vAcAted.
12 Id.
13 See Planned Parenthood of Missouri v. Danforth, supra note 1.
IN RE pETITION OF ANONYMOUS 3 	917
Cite as 279 Neb. 912