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.
It has to be if the law is going to distinguish DCF authority over a minor, from parental authority over a minor.
But my take on the case is that it starts from the premise of the minor's rights. And if that is the starting point, the minor is the same, whether control over her is (otherwise) under DCF or private guardianship.
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.
Again, my take is that the court views itself as agnostic. It's function is to protect the rights of the minor. It is the DCF who has the burden of showing that it has an interest that overrides the minors rights.