Pages 37-41 provide the heart of the Florida Supreme Court decision.
What's interesting here is that the courts set themselves up as agnostic, unwilling to be the decision maker. The FLorida Supreme Court decision is that a minor can't be forced to seek court permission. So. L.G's case (the present case) pits the will of the DCF against the will of L.G. It isn't about "the will of the court," except inasmuch as the Florida Supreme Court has ruled that pregnant minors have a right to obtain an abortion without first obtaining parental or court consent.
So, the question might be phrased as "Does the DCF have more power against the pregnant minor's rights than another guardian would have?" And I add, if so, why?
I think the starting point is different. In the instant case the issue was whether the state had a compelling interest to override the child's right to privacy. If yes, it could intervene and require parental notification. If no, it could not intervene.
In the current case, the court already has a compelling interest as the child, as well as the unborn child, is a ward of the state. The hurdle of having an interest in the affairs of the child has already been met. Once met, the state has to determine the best interests of the child. Weighing the benefits of aborting the child against the risk of pregnancy is one that would be up to the court to determine on the facts and circumstances of each case.