Medical Rights for Teens and Kids: When Parents Decide and When They Don’t

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

In the United States legal system, parents are entrusted with making medical decisions for their children.

This authority, however, is conditional. It is shaped by federal and state laws, landmark Supreme Court rulings, and evolving ethical standards.

A teenager’s right to consent to their own healthcare can change dramatically depending on where they live, their personal circumstances, and the specific medical service they need.

The General Rule: Why Parents Decide

The bedrock of medical law for children in the United States is the principle of parental consent. This long-standing rule is rooted in legal tradition, ethical considerations, and a societal understanding of the family unit.

Before examining the many exceptions, it’s essential to understand why this principle exists and how it works.

Defining a Minor

The legal system creates a bright line between childhood and adulthood known as the “age of majority.” Under federal healthcare regulations and the laws of most states, a “minor” is legally defined as anyone under the age of 18.

Once an individual reaches this age, they are considered an adult for most legal purposes, including the right to make their own healthcare decisions.

There are, however, a few state-level exceptions to this standard. The age of majority is 19 in Alabama and Nebraska, and 21 in Mississippi, although Mississippi law specifically sets 18 as the age of consent for healthcare services.

For anyone legally defined as a minor, the general rule is that a healthcare provider cannot administer medical treatment without first obtaining legally valid informed consent. This consent must come from a person with the legal authority to make decisions on the minor’s behalf, which typically includes:

A biological parent. A legal guardian who can provide official court documentation of their status. An individual holding a valid medical power of attorney (MPOA) for the minor.

This requirement is a foundational element of U.S. healthcare law, designed to protect children who are legally presumed to lack the capacity to make complex medical decisions for themselves.

The Foundations of Parental Authority

The authority granted to parents is not arbitrary; it is built on deep-seated legal and ethical principles. Legally, the right of parents to direct the care and upbringing of their children is considered a fundamental constitutional right, stemming from the right to privacy in family matters and long-standing common law traditions.

This authority is broad, even including the right to refuse or discontinue treatments, including those that may be life-sustaining.

Ethically, this power is vested in parents based on the presumption that they are the individuals who care most about their child and are uniquely positioned to understand the child’s needs, values, and personal history. This intimate knowledge allows them to make decisions that are in the child’s “best interests.”

Furthermore, because a child’s medical journey often affects the entire family, parents can integrate broader family values and considerations into the decision-making process. The American Medical Association (AMA) frames this as a dual responsibility for parents: to safeguard their children’s physical health and well-being and to nurture their developing personhood and capacity for autonomy.

This “best interests” standard, however, is not an unlimited grant of power; it is also the primary justification for limiting parental authority. The power delegated to parents is conditional.

The state, under a legal doctrine known as parens patriae (Latin for “parent of the nation”), retains the ultimate authority to protect the welfare of children. When parental decisions are deemed “potentially dangerous,” “imprudent, neglectful, or abusive,” or place a child at “significant risk of serious harm,” medical providers and the state have an ethical and legal duty to intervene.

A landmark 1944 Supreme Court case, Prince v. Massachusetts, affirmed that the state could override parental decisions, even those based on religious beliefs, when the refusal of medical treatment would likely result in the child’s death or significant disability.

This creates a foundational tension in the law: the very principle that grants parents their authority—acting in the child’s best interest—is the same principle that allows the state to take that authority away. This inherent conflict is the source of nearly every exception to the parental consent rule.

From Battery to Self-Determination

The modern concept of medical consent did not originate with children’s rights but with the rights of adults, rooted in the legal concept of battery—an unwanted physical touching. In the early 20th century, a series of pivotal court cases began to codify the right of patients to control what happens to their own bodies.

In Mohr v. Williams (1905), a patient consented to surgery on her right ear, but the surgeon, upon finding the left ear to be in worse condition, operated on it instead without her consent. The court ruled against the surgeon, establishing that a doctor cannot assume consent.

Similarly, in Pratt v. Davis (1906), a court found a surgeon liable for performing a hysterectomy on a patient who had not consented to that specific procedure.

These cases culminated in the famous 1914 opinion by Judge Benjamin Cardozo in Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital. A woman who had consented only to an examination was given a hysterectomy against her express wishes.

In his ruling, Cardozo wrote the defining words of patient autonomy: “Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient’s consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages.”

This history is critical for understanding minors’ rights. It establishes that the default rule for adults is self-determination. Therefore, the default rule for minors—parental consent—is fundamentally an exception to this principle of autonomy.

The entire legal framework governing medical rights for teens and kids is a continuous negotiation over when, and under what circumstances, a young person transitions from being under the protection of the parental consent rule to having the full autonomy granted to adults.

When Minors Gain Legal Adulthood

While the age of majority marks the standard transition to full medical autonomy, the law recognizes that some minors, due to their life circumstances or demonstrated maturity, should be granted the rights of an adult sooner.

There are two primary legal pathways for this to occur: emancipation and the mature minor doctrine. These mechanisms allow a minor to “graduate” from the parental consent rule and become their own healthcare advocate.

The Emancipated Minor

Emancipation is a formal legal process through which a minor is declared an adult in the eyes of the law, freeing them from the control of their parents or guardians. In turn, parents are released from their legal responsibilities to the child, including financial support.

An emancipated minor has the same capacity as an adult to make medical decisions, including the right to consent to or refuse treatment without any parental involvement or notification.

The specific laws and procedures for emancipation vary significantly from state to state, creating a patchwork of different requirements across the country. However, there are several common pathways by which a minor can achieve this status:

Marriage: In most states, a minor who is legally married is automatically considered emancipated for the purpose of medical consent.

Military Service: A minor on active duty in the U.S. armed forces is also generally considered emancipated.

Court Order: A minor can petition a court for a formal declaration of emancipation. To be successful, the minor typically must prove to the court that they are living separately from their parents and are capable of managing their own financial affairs.

Being a Parent: In many jurisdictions, a minor who is a parent can consent to medical care for their own child, and in some cases, this status also grants them the right to consent to their own medical care.

Once emancipated, a minor is not only empowered to make their own medical decisions but is also legally responsible for paying for their own medical care. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), an emancipated minor is treated as the “individual” and holds the right to control access to their own protected health information.

The Mature Minor Doctrine

A second, more nuanced pathway to self-consent is the “mature minor” doctrine. This is a legal rule, recognized either by state statute or by court decisions, that allows a minor who is not emancipated to consent to specific medical treatments if they can demonstrate the capacity to do so.

Unlike emancipation, which confers broad adult rights, the mature minor doctrine is typically applied on a case-by-case basis. A physician or a court might determine that a 16-year-old is mature enough to consent to a low-risk procedure but not to a complex, high-risk surgery.

This doctrine represents a philosophical shift in the law. The general rule of parental consent is status-based—a person’s rights are determined by their legal status as a “minor” or an “adult.” Emancipation is also status-based, as it changes the minor’s legal category.

The mature minor doctrine, in contrast, is capacity-based. It argues that the right to make a decision should be tied to an individual’s actual ability to understand the situation and its consequences, regardless of their age or legal status.

This approach aligns more closely with modern bioethical principles that prioritize patient autonomy and informed consent.

The criteria used to determine if a minor is “mature” vary by state but generally focus on assessing the minor’s ability to give a truly informed consent. Factors considered often include:

Age: While there is no universal age, the doctrine is most commonly applied to older adolescents, typically those 14 or 16 years of age and older.

Understanding: The minor’s ability to comprehend the nature of their medical condition, the proposed treatment, the risks and benefits, and any available alternatives.

Experience and Education: The minor’s life experience, education level, and general conduct.

Judgment: The minor’s ability to weigh the options and make a reasoned decision.

Despite its ethical appeal, the application of the mature minor doctrine is highly inconsistent across the United States, revealing a deep societal and legal ambivalence about adolescent autonomy.

A handful of states, such as Arkansas and Nevada, have formally enacted the doctrine into their state laws. Several others, including Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Massachusetts, recognize it as a part of their common law through judicial precedent.

However, many states have no such doctrine, and some have even taken steps to limit its reach. For example, Tennessee, which had a long-standing mature minor doctrine based on a “Rule of Sevens” (presuming capacity for those 14 and older), recently passed a law that explicitly counteracts it for immunizations, now requiring parental consent in all cases.

This legislative rollback, driven by political debates over “parental rights,” illustrates the fragile and contested nature of the doctrine. It exists in a state of tension—a progressive, capacity-based view of autonomy that has not been fully embraced by a legal system that remains hesitant to cede parental authority.

Exceptions for Sensitive Services

Beyond the pathways that grant minors broad adult status, the most common way a minor can consent to their own care is through specific, service-based exceptions carved out by state laws.

These laws create protected zones where adolescents can seek confidential treatment for sensitive health issues without parental involvement.

Why Create Exceptions?

The primary motivation behind these exceptions is a pragmatic public health concern. Lawmakers and public health experts have recognized that for certain sensitive issues—such as sexual health, mental health, and substance abuse—requiring parental consent can be a significant barrier to care.

Adolescents, fearing judgment, punishment, or family conflict, may avoid seeking necessary medical help altogether if they are forced to disclose their situation to a parent.

This expansion of minors’ medical authority gained significant momentum in the 1970s, spurred by a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that extended the constitutional right to privacy to cover a minor’s decisions regarding contraception and abortion.

These laws, therefore, represent a calculated balance. They acknowledge the general importance of parental involvement but conclude that in these specific, high-stakes contexts, the societal benefit of preventing teen pregnancies, treating STDs, and addressing mental health crises outweighs the default principle of parental authority.

Sexual and Reproductive Health

Nowhere are the exceptions to parental consent more prevalent than in the area of sexual and reproductive health.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) and HIV: This is the most universally accepted exception. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws that explicitly permit minors to consent to the diagnosis and treatment of STDs, including HIV.

While the specifics can vary—for example, California allows minors aged 12 and older to consent for this care—the core principle of confidential access is recognized nationwide.

Contraception and Family Planning: Many states have laws or policies that explicitly authorize minors to consent to contraceptive services. This access is strongly reinforced by federal policy.

The Title X Family Planning Program, a major source of federal funding for family planning clinics, has been required to provide services to all individuals who need them, regardless of age, since its inception in 1970.

However, this area is not without controversy. Some states, notably Texas and Utah, have passed laws that prohibit the use of state funds to provide prescription contraceptives to minors without parental consent, creating a complex funding-dependent system of access.

Pregnancy and Prenatal Care: A minor who is pregnant is generally empowered to make her own medical decisions related to that pregnancy. This includes consenting to prenatal care, labor and delivery services, and postpartum care without needing parental permission.

Minor as a Parent: Once a minor becomes a parent, their legal status regarding medical consent shifts dramatically. In most jurisdictions, a minor parent can legally consent to medical treatment for themselves and for their child.

This can lead to a paradoxical legal situation. For instance, a 16-year-old mother could legally consent to a major surgical procedure for her infant, but she might not be able to consent to the very same procedure for herself if it were unrelated to her pregnancy, unless another exception applied.

Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment

Recognizing the critical importance of early intervention, a majority of states have enacted laws that allow minors to consent to their own outpatient mental and behavioral health services, as well as treatment for substance abuse.

However, the laws in this area are particularly varied and often contain specific limitations. The age at which a minor can consent differs widely, with states setting the threshold at 12, 13, 14, or 16.

Furthermore, a minor’s right to consent may not be absolute even within these exceptions. For example, in Maryland, a minor aged 12 or older can consent to mental health counseling and therapy. However, if that minor is under the age of 16, parental consent is still required for a doctor to prescribe psychiatric medications.

This demonstrates the granular nature of these laws, where the right to consent can depend on the minor’s age and the specific type of treatment being offered (e.g., talk therapy versus prescription drugs).

Emergency Care and Special Circumstances

Medical Emergencies: The most clear-cut exception to parental consent is in the case of a medical emergency. This rule is universal across all states.

A healthcare provider is permitted—and expected—to provide necessary medical treatment to a minor without parental consent when a delay to obtain that consent would endanger the minor’s life or seriously threaten their health.

This common-law principle is bolstered by the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires any hospital receiving Medicare funding to provide a medical screening exam and stabilizing treatment to any person presenting with an emergency medical condition, regardless of their age or ability to pay.

Homeless and Runaway Youth: A growing number of states are recognizing the unique vulnerability of homeless and runaway youth, who often lack access to a parent or guardian to provide consent.

To address this gap, states like New York and Washington have passed specific laws that empower these minors to consent to their own general medical, dental, and hospital care.

For example, a 2023 law in New York explicitly allows homeless youth to consent to a wide range of health services, ensuring they are not denied care due to their circumstances.

How the Supreme Court Shaped Minor’s Rights

The legal landscape of minors’ medical rights has been profoundly shaped by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court’s rulings have navigated the turbulent intersection of parental authority, a minor’s developing autonomy, and the state’s duty to protect children.

These landmark cases did not create a single, simple rule but instead established a complex and context-dependent framework that defines the constitutional boundaries of the issue.

A Constitutional Balancing Act

The legal questions surrounding a minor’s right to consent are not simple because they involve a clash of powerful, constitutionally recognized interests. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in this area can be understood as a continuous effort to balance three competing claims:

The Parent’s Right: The Court has long recognized that parents have a fundamental liberty interest, protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, in the care, custody, and control of their children. This includes the right to guide their upbringing and make important decisions on their behalf.

The Minor’s Right: The Court has also affirmed that minors are “persons” under the Constitution and possess their own constitutional rights. These include a right to privacy and bodily integrity, which, while not as extensive as an adult’s, can limit the power of both parents and the state.

The State’s Interest: The government has a legitimate and compelling interest in the well-being of its citizens, particularly children. Under its parens patriae authority, the state can intervene to protect a child’s health and safety, especially when parental decisions might lead to harm.

The outcomes of the landmark cases below are a direct result of how the Court weighed these three interests in different medical contexts.

Key Supreme Court Precedents

The most significant legal battles over minors’ consent have been fought in the highly contentious arena of reproductive rights, leading to a series of foundational precedents.

Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976)

Background: This case challenged a Missouri law enacted after Roe v. Wade that imposed several restrictions on abortion, including a requirement that an unmarried minor obtain the written consent of one of her parents before the procedure.

Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down the parental consent provision. The majority opinion, written by Justice Blackmun, reasoned that since the state itself could not prohibit an abortion during the first trimester, it could not delegate that power to a third party, including a parent.

The Court declared that the state does not have the constitutional authority to give a parent “an absolute and possibly arbitrary veto” over the decision of the physician and their minor patient.

Significance: Danforth was a groundbreaking decision. It was the first time the Supreme Court explicitly ruled that a minor’s constitutional right to privacy could, in the context of abortion, supersede a parent’s desire to control that decision. It firmly established that parental authority is not absolute.

Bellotti v. Baird (1979)

Background: This case involved a Massachusetts statute that was more complex than the one in Danforth. It required an unmarried minor to obtain consent from both parents for an abortion.

If one or both parents refused, the minor could seek approval from a superior court judge. However, the law was flawed: the judge could still deny the abortion even if they found the minor to be mature and competent, and the law required that parents be notified of the court proceeding in every instance.

Ruling: The Court found the Massachusetts law unconstitutional. It identified two key defects. First, it allowed a judge to overrule the decision of a minor who was demonstrably mature and capable of making the choice for herself. Second, it provided no pathway for a minor to go to court confidentially, without her parents’ knowledge.

Significance: Bellotti is arguably the most important case for defining the modern legal framework for parental involvement laws. In its decision, the Court outlined the constitutional requirements for any such law.

It held that if a state wants to require parental consent, it must provide an alternative “judicial bypass” procedure. This procedure must allow the minor to demonstrate to a judge, in a confidential and expedited manner, that either: 1) she is mature and well-informed enough to make the abortion decision on her own, OR 2) even if she is not, the abortion is in her “best interests.”

This framework remains the constitutional standard that nearly all current state parental involvement laws are built upon.

Parham v. J.R. (1979)

Background: Decided in the same year as Bellotti, this case dealt with a very different issue: the “voluntary” commitment of a minor to a state mental institution by their parents or guardians.

A class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of minors argued that this process, which did not require a formal hearing, violated their due process rights.

Ruling: In a stark departure from the reasoning in the abortion cases, the Court upheld Georgia’s procedures. It heavily emphasized the legal presumption that parents act in their children’s best interests and found that requiring a formal, adversarial hearing would create an “unacceptable intrusion into the parent-child relationship.”

However, the Court did not grant parents absolute power. It ruled that a child’s due process rights require some protection, which could be satisfied by having a “neutral factfinder”—such as a staff physician at the institution—review the admission to determine if the child’s commitment is medically necessary and appropriate.

Significance: Parham strongly affirmed parental authority in the context of mental healthcare. When viewed alongside Danforth and Bellotti, it reveals that the Supreme Court has not created a single, unified theory of minors’ rights.

Instead, it has established a bifurcated system. In the realm of reproductive health, where a minor’s own fundamental privacy right is paramount, the Court is highly skeptical of parental authority and has erected procedural safeguards like the judicial bypass to limit it.

In other areas, such as mental health commitment, the Court is far more deferential to parental authority, viewing the decision as parents seeking necessary care for their child, and requires only minimal procedural checks.

This creates a legal paradox: a minor may have more constitutionally protected autonomy to decide to have an abortion against her parents’ wishes than she does to refuse commitment to a mental institution that her parents desire.

This demonstrates that “minors’ rights” are not a monolithic concept but a collection of context-dependent rules driven by which competing interest—the parent’s, the minor’s, or the state’s—the Court prioritizes in a given situation.

In the Doctor’s Office: Ethics and Practical Challenges

While laws and court cases define the legal boundaries, the real-world application of minors’ medical rights happens in the examination room. Here, physicians, patients, and parents navigate a complex terrain of ethical duties, privacy concerns, and practical hurdles that can make confidential care a significant challenge.

The Doctor’s Ethical Compass

Beyond legal requirements, physicians are guided by the ethical principles of their profession. Major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), have established guidelines that often encourage greater respect for adolescent autonomy than the law may strictly mandate.

Both the AMA and the AAP emphasize a physician’s ethical duty to promote the “developing autonomy” of their minor patients. This is not about simply waiting for a patient to turn 18. Instead, it is an active process of involving children and adolescents in discussions about their health to a degree that is “commensurate with their abilities.”

Physicians are ethically encouraged to talk with minor patients about why they may be reluctant to involve their parents, to correct any misconceptions, and to offer to facilitate conversations between the teen and their family whenever it is safe and appropriate to do so.

When a minor who is judged to be competent requests confidential care for a sensitive service—and the law does not explicitly require parental involvement—the AMA’s Code of Medical Ethics is clear: the physician should ordinarily respect the minor’s wishes and provide the confidential care.

If a particular physician is uncomfortable doing so, their ethical obligation is not to deny care but to refer the minor to another provider or clinic where confidential services can be obtained.

Assent vs. Consent

A crucial distinction in pediatric ethics is the difference between legal consent and ethical assent.

Consent is the legally valid authorization for medical treatment. For a minor, this authority is typically held by a parent or guardian.

Assent is the affirmative, willing agreement of a minor to participate in a medical procedure. While it is not legally binding in most cases, it is a critical ethical requirement.

Seeking a child’s assent is a way of showing respect for them as a developing person, not just an object of medical treatment. It is a vital part of building a trusting and positive physician-patient relationship.

As a child matures, the ethical weight of their assent—or dissent—grows. The AAP advises that the refusal of assent from a competent older child or adolescent should be taken very seriously and explored, as it may indicate a misunderstanding or a deep-seated fear that needs to be addressed.

The practice of seeking assent serves as the clinical bridge between a young child who has no say in their care and an adult who has full legal authority, operationalizing the ethical duty to foster autonomy.

The Privacy Paradox

The promise of confidential care for minors faces a significant real-world obstacle: the structure of the U.S. health insurance system.

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule is the federal law that governs the confidentiality of protected health information. As a general rule, HIPAA allows a parent to access their child’s medical records because they are considered the child’s “personal representative.”

However, HIPAA includes a critical provision that defers to state law. If a state law permits a minor to consent to a particular type of care on their own (for example, STD treatment), then for that specific service, the parent is not considered the personal representative. In that situation, the minor alone controls who can access their medical information.

While this legal structure seems to protect confidentiality, it often breaks down in practice. The problem arises when the family’s health insurance is used to pay for the confidential service.

The insurance company, in its normal course of business, sends an Explanation of Benefits (EOB) statement to the primary policyholder—who is almost always the parent. This EOB document typically lists the patient’s name, the date of service, the provider, and the type of service rendered.

This routine piece of mail can inadvertently and completely breach the minor’s confidentiality, informing parents about care the teen sought to keep private.

This creates a “confidentiality gap.” The law may grant a legal right to confidential care, but the practical realities of the payment system can render that right meaningless. The fear of an EOB being sent home is a well-known deterrent that can discourage teens from seeking the very care these laws were designed to encourage.

This is not strictly a legal failure but a systemic one, where the logic of the insurance system (informing the policyholder) conflicts directly with the logic of public health law (ensuring confidentiality for sensitive services).

While workarounds exist—such as paying out-of-pocket, seeking care at federally funded Title X clinics that have systems to ensure billing privacy, or enrolling in state-specific benefit programs designed for confidential care—they are not universally available or known.

This gap highlights a crucial point: a legal right is only as strong as the system that supports it, and for many American teens, the promise of medical privacy remains fragile.

A Patchwork of Laws: Medical Consent Across the 50 States

While federal laws and Supreme Court decisions provide a national framework, the day-to-day rules governing a minor’s right to consent to medical care are overwhelmingly determined at the state level.

This has resulted in a complex and often contradictory “patchwork” of laws, where the rights of a teenager can change dramatically by simply crossing a state line.

Why State Law is Key

There is no single “U.S. law” on minor medical consent. The federal government sets a baseline with laws like HIPAA and EMTALA, and the Supreme Court establishes broad constitutional boundaries, but the specific details—such as the age at which a minor can consent for mental health care, whether a “mature minor” doctrine is recognized, or what hoops a teen must jump through for an abortion—are decided by each state’s legislature and courts.

This means that the most critical piece of information for any parent, teen, educator, or healthcare provider is an understanding of the specific laws in their own state.

The following table provides a high-level, comparative snapshot of these variations across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It serves as a practical starting point for understanding local rules and demonstrates the immense diversity in how states approach this issue.

State-by-State Snapshot of Minor Consent Laws

This table summarizes key provisions related to a minor’s ability to consent to healthcare. The information is primarily drawn from comprehensive legal reviews by the National Center for Youth Law and the Guttmacher Institute.

It is intended as a guide and is not a substitute for legal advice. Laws are subject to change, and users should verify information with primary state sources.

This table is intended as a guide and is not a substitute for legal advice. Laws are subject to change, and users should verify information with primary state sources.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.