Massey v. Carter

The Case  Debra Massey (formerly Carter) and Robert Carter are a married couple in the state of Pennsylvania  Massey and Carter carried a pregnancy into the second trimester, at which point Massey filed for divorce.  In addition to seeking a divorce, she also sought an abortion.

The Case  Carter believed that Massey’s actions are recklessly endangering their child Massey filed for divorce under “irreconcilable” differences Massey filed for divorce under “irreconcilable” differences No evidence of physical or verbal abuse No evidence of physical or verbal abuse Carter requested counseling during proceedings; Massey declined Carter requested counseling during proceedings; Massey declined Massey has a history of bipolar disorder Massey has a history of bipolar disorder

The Case (cont)  Carter filed for a restraining order under Pennsylvania state laws regarding child protective services, First, he filed an injunction requesting a custody hearing since under Pennsylvania law First, he filed an injunction requesting a custody hearing since under Pennsylvania law Citing parens patriae (children caught up in litigation is the court’s paramount concern)Citing parens patriae (children caught up in litigation is the court’s paramount concern) He asked to be appointed the child’s guardian ad litemHe asked to be appointed the child’s guardian ad litem According to the Convention on the Rights of a Child, children are typically allowed to speak in situations regarding their welfareAccording to the Convention on the Rights of a Child, children are typically allowed to speak in situations regarding their welfare Since their unborn child is too young, Carter argues that he should be appointed de facto guardian to represent his child’s interest to lifeSince their unborn child is too young, Carter argues that he should be appointed de facto guardian to represent his child’s interest to life

The Case (cont)  Appeal Under normal circumstances, this same situation would entitle a custody hearing in Family court Under normal circumstances, this same situation would entitle a custody hearing in Family court Since contact and visitation here are moot (as the child is in permanent contact with the mother), Carter is requesting an temporary injunction against her abortion request Since contact and visitation here are moot (as the child is in permanent contact with the mother), Carter is requesting an temporary injunction against her abortion request  The Pregnancy Has just crossed into the second trimester Has just crossed into the second trimester

Background  Due to the need for expediency, this case has been pushed through the lower courts in a matter of 36 hours  The US SC literally has a matter of days to decide

The Problem  Issues: Massey argues that her right to an abortion was denied Massey argues that her right to an abortion was denied Carter argues that he is entitled to some protective custody under Pennsylvania state law Carter argues that he is entitled to some protective custody under Pennsylvania state law  Constitutional Questions Does privacy extend in this case? Does privacy extend in this case? Does the undue burden test apply here? Does the undue burden test apply here?

The Result  During trial, Massey’s attorneys argue that she was denied her right to privacy she was denied her right to privacy that the state of Oklahoma is at fault for using stalling injunctions that the state of Oklahoma is at fault for using stalling injunctions and that Carter is personally responsible. and that Carter is personally responsible.  Pennsylvania prosecutors and Carter’s attorneys argue that The state was representing Carter’s interests, not their own, which are broader than the mandates in Roe The state was representing Carter’s interests, not their own, which are broader than the mandates in Roe and that Carter’s parental interests coincided with state interests in preserving life until family court could decide on custody. and that Carter’s parental interests coincided with state interests in preserving life until family court could decide on custody.

The Hearings  Family Court Allowed the custodial injunction and temporary restraining order pending the ruling of a higher court Allowed the custodial injunction and temporary restraining order pending the ruling of a higher court  Small claims court: Ruled against the state injunction as intrusive, but ruled that Carter should be allowed to contest custody if the child was brought to term. Ruled against the state injunction as intrusive, but ruled that Carter should be allowed to contest custody if the child was brought to term.  The Court of Appeals Found in favor of Carter’s temporary injunction, but remanded that there may be a constitutional issue regarding the interpretation of Roe as it applies to personal interest as opposed to state Found in favor of Carter’s temporary injunction, but remanded that there may be a constitutional issue regarding the interpretation of Roe as it applies to personal interest as opposed to state

The Arguments  Massey Argues that the same principles that applies to unwarranted government intrusions should also apply to the individual Argues that the same principles that applies to unwarranted government intrusions should also apply to the individual And that if the privacy protections are to be meaningful, they must be completely inclusiveAnd that if the privacy protections are to be meaningful, they must be completely inclusive Argues that despite spousal notification, a woman’s right to choose should be taken over other considerations – esp in the 2 nd trimesterArgues that despite spousal notification, a woman’s right to choose should be taken over other considerations – esp in the 2 nd trimester And they also argue that allowing individuals to place injunctions breaks the undue burden clauseAnd they also argue that allowing individuals to place injunctions breaks the undue burden clause

The Arguments  Pennsylvania Argues that parental interests are not the same as state interests Argues that parental interests are not the same as state interests That the two occasionally coincide That the two occasionally coincide And that from the language of Roe, the second trimester is when the state has a fundamental interest to intervene And that from the language of Roe, the second trimester is when the state has a fundamental interest to intervene  Carter (jointly) Argues that upon being informed of paternity that his interests were made an issue Argues that upon being informed of paternity that his interests were made an issue That during the second and third trimesters are when other interests take more importance (echoing Roe) That during the second and third trimesters are when other interests take more importance (echoing Roe)  Both And that the existing Pennsylvania laws are currently protecting all parties involved And that the existing Pennsylvania laws are currently protecting all parties involved

Potential Results  Depending on your ruling today, there are at least two potential outcomes: Uphold the lower courts (no change) Uphold the lower courts (no change) and incorporate the arguments of Carter into your decision as a limitation to Roeand incorporate the arguments of Carter into your decision as a limitation to Roe Strike down the lower courts decisions Strike down the lower courts decisions Necessitating some new language as to how state and personal interests relate to existing casesNecessitating some new language as to how state and personal interests relate to existing cases And rewriting the state’s position on partial-birth abortion legalityAnd rewriting the state’s position on partial-birth abortion legality

The Debate  Teams: See instructions  Time: Decision: 10 min Decision: 10 min Arguments: 20 min (10 per team) Arguments: 20 min (10 per team) Prep: whatever’s still available before 11:45 Prep: whatever’s still available before 11:45