DOCSLIB.ORG

2020 Report on Child Marriage in the United States a National Overview of Child Marriage Data and Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2020 Report on Child Marriage in the United States a National Overview of Child Marriage Data and Law 2020 Report on Child Marriage in the United States A National Overview of Child Marriage Data and Law May 8, 2020 Professor Marci A. Hamilton Founder, CEO, and Academic Director, CHILD USA Fox Professor of Practice University of Pennsylvania [email protected] (215) 539-1906 CHILD USA is the leading nonprofit think tank working to end child abuse and neglect in the United States. CHILD USA engages in high-level legal, social science, and medical research and analysis to derive the best public policies to end child abuse and neglect. Distinct from the many organizations engaged in direct service, CHILD USA produces evidence-based solutions and information needed by policymakers, organizations, media, and society to increase child protection and the common good. Our goal is to help millions of children at a time. © 2020 CHILD USA CHILDUSA.org | 3508 Market Street, Suite 202 | Philadelphia, PA 19104 | [email protected] | 215.539.1906 www.childusa.org Table of Contents I. An Overview of Child Marriage ............................................................................................. 5 A. A Brief History of Child Marriage ................................................................................... 5 B. Current Rates of Child Marriage ...................................................................................... 7 C. Negative Consequences of Child Marriage ...................................................................... 8 D. International Child Marriage Law in a Nutshell ............................................................ 10 II. Child Marriage in the United States...................................................................................... 12 A. An Overview of Child Marriage in the United States .................................................... 12 B. State by State Analysis of Child Marriage Laws ........................................................... 15 Alabama ................................................................................................................................ 15 Alaska ................................................................................................................................... 15 Arizona .................................................................................................................................. 15 Arkansas ................................................................................................................................ 16 California .............................................................................................................................. 16 Colorado ................................................................................................................................ 16 Connecticut ........................................................................................................................... 16 Delaware ............................................................................................................................... 17 Florida ................................................................................................................................... 17 Georgia .................................................................................................................................. 17 Hawaii ................................................................................................................................... 18 Idaho ..................................................................................................................................... 18 Illinois ................................................................................................................................... 18 Indiana................................................................................................................................... 18 Iowa....................................................................................................................................... 18 Kansas ................................................................................................................................... 19 Kentucky ............................................................................................................................... 19 Louisiana ............................................................................................................................... 19 Maine .................................................................................................................................... 19 Maryland ............................................................................................................................... 20 Massachusetts ....................................................................................................................... 20 Michigan ............................................................................................................................... 20 Minnesota .............................................................................................................................. 21 2 www.childusa.org Mississippi ............................................................................................................................ 21 Missouri ................................................................................................................................ 21 Montana ................................................................................................................................ 21 Nebraska ............................................................................................................................... 21 Nevada .................................................................................................................................. 22 New Hampshire .................................................................................................................... 22 New Jersey ............................................................................................................................ 22 New Mexico .......................................................................................................................... 22 New York .............................................................................................................................. 23 North Carolina ...................................................................................................................... 23 North Dakota ......................................................................................................................... 23 Ohio....................................................................................................................................... 23 Oklahoma .............................................................................................................................. 24 Oregon................................................................................................................................... 24 Pennsylvania ......................................................................................................................... 24 Rhode Island ......................................................................................................................... 24 South Carolina ...................................................................................................................... 24 South Dakota ......................................................................................................................... 25 Tennessee .............................................................................................................................. 25 Texas ..................................................................................................................................... 25 Utah ....................................................................................................................................... 25 Vermont ................................................................................................................................ 26 Virginia ................................................................................................................................. 26 Washington ........................................................................................................................... 26 West Virginia ........................................................................................................................ 26 Wyoming............................................................................................................................... 27 Washington D.C. ................................................................................................................... 27 C. Child Marriage Laws in U.S. Territories........................................................................ 27 American Samoa ................................................................................................................... 27 Guam & Northern Marina Islands ........................................................................................ 27 Puerto Rico............................................................................................................................ 27 U.S. Virgin Islands ...............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Married Too Young? the Behavioral Ecology of 'Child Marriage'
    social sciences $€ £ ¥ Review Married Too Young? The Behavioral Ecology of ‘Child Marriage’ Susan B. Schaffnit 1,* and David W. Lawson 2 1 Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16801, USA 2 Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: For girls and women, marriage under 18 years is commonplace in many low-income nations today and was culturally widespread historically. Global health campaigns refer to marriage below this threshold as ‘child marriage’ and increasingly aim for its universal eradication, citing its apparent negative wellbeing consequences. Here, we outline and evaluate four alternative hypotheses for the persistence of early marriage, despite its associations with poor wellbeing, arising from the theoretical framework of human behavioral ecology. First, early marriage may be adaptive (e.g., it maximizes reproductive success), even if detrimental to wellbeing, when life expectancy is short. Second, parent– offspring conflict may explain early marriage, with parents profiting economically at the expense of their daughter’s best interests. Third, early marriage may be explained by intergenerational conflict, whereby girls marry young to emancipate themselves from continued labor within natal households. Finally, both daughters and parents from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds favor early marriage as a ‘best of a bad job strategy’ when it represents the best option given a lack of feasible alternatives. The explanatory power of each hypothesis is context-dependent, highlighting the complex drivers of life history transitions and reinforcing the need for context-specific policies Citation: Schaffnit, Susan B., and addressing the vulnerabilities of adolescence worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of U.S. Family Law Vivian E
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2006 Principles of U.S. Family Law Vivian E. Hamilton William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Hamilton, Vivian E., "Principles of U.S. Family Law" (2006). Faculty Publications. 184. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/184 Copyright c 2006 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs ARTICLE PRINCIPLES OF U.S. FAMILY LAW Vivian Hamilton* What explains US. family law? What are the orzgms of the current chaos and controversy in the field, the home of some of the most vituperative debates in public policy? To answer these questions, this Article identifies and examines family law's foundational principles. It undertakes a conceptual analysis ofthe legal practices that govern families. This analysis has yet to be done, and its absence hamstrings constructive thought on our family law. The Article develops a typology that conceptualizes US. family law and exposes its underlying principles. First, it identifies the significant elements, or rules, of family law. Second, it demonstrates that these rules reflect or embody four important concepts­ conjugality, privacy (familial as well as individual), contract, and parens patriae. Third, it shows that the concepts offamily law in turn embody two distinct underlying principles-Biblical traditionalism and liberal individualism. From these powerful principles, we can derive modern U.S. family law: They explain what our family law is. With this deepened understanding offamily law's structure, the Article next evaluates these principles, and family law as the expression ofthem.
    [Show full text]
  • Homeschooling and the Question of Socialization Revisited
    Homeschooling and the Question of Socialization Revisited Richard G. Medlin Stetson University This article reviews recent research on homeschooled children’s socialization. The research indicates that homeschooling parents expect their children to respect and get along with people of diverse backgrounds, provide their children with a variety of social opportunities outside the family, and believe their children’s social skills are at least as good as those of other children. What homeschooled children think about their own social skills is less clear. Compared to children attending conventional schools, however, research suggest that they have higher quality friendships and better relationships with their parents and other adults. They are happy, optimistic, and satisfied with their lives. Their moral reasoning is at least as advanced as that of other children, and they may be more likely to act unselfishly. As adolescents, they have a strong sense of social responsibility and exhibit less emotional turmoil and problem behaviors than their peers. Those who go on to college are socially involved and open to new experiences. Adults who were homeschooled as children are civically engaged and functioning competently in every way measured so far. An alarmist view of homeschooling, therefore, is not supported by empirical research. It is suggested that future studies focus not on outcomes of socialization but on the process itself. Homeschooling, once considered a fringe movement, is now widely seen as “an acceptable alternative to conventional schooling” (Stevens, 2003, p. 90). This “normalization of homeschooling” (Stevens, 2003, p. 90) has prompted scholars to announce: “Homeschooling goes mainstream” (Gaither, 2009, p. 11) and “Homeschooling comes of age” (Lines, 2000, p.
    [Show full text]
  • First Comes Marriage, Then Comes Baby, Then Comes What Exactly?
    The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications 2020 First Comes Marriage, Then Comes Baby, Then Comes What Exactly? Erez Aloni Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs Part of the Family Law Commons, and the Sexuality and the Law Commons Citation Details Erez Aloni, "First Comes Marriage, Then Comes Baby, Then Comes What Exactly?" (2020) 15:1 National Taiwan National Taiwan U L Rev 49. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Allard Faculty Publications at Allard Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Allard Research Commons. Article First Comes Marriage, Then Comes Baby, Then Comes What Exactly? Erez Aloni * ABSTRACT Taiwan’s legalization of same-sex marriage is an event of international importance concerning the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and partners; further, it constitutes an opportunity to examine the state of LGBTQ+ equality in Taiwan and elsewhere. To this end, through theoretical and comparative lenses, this Article asks what equality for LGBTQ+ means and what comes after marriage. It offers perspectives on the past, present, and future of the intersection of same-sex marriage and equality. Looking at the path to same-sex marriage in Taiwan, the Article argues that the Taiwanese Constitutional Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage maintained a line between domesticated liberty for LGBTQ+ people, on the one hand, and limits on that population’s liberty to form families, on the other.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall-2019-Conference-Speakers-1
    Guest Speakers Dr. Sharon L. Sullivan Dr. Sharon L. Sullivan has degrees from Smith College, Washington University and the University of Kansas. She is a Professor at Washburn University. Her research and activism focus on violence against women and children, including sexual and domestic violence, human trafficking, and rape as a weapon of war. Sharon is cofounder and director of STARS (Stop Trafficking and Reject Slavery), a member of the Advisory Board for the Topeka Center for Peace and Justice, a member of the Kansas Human Trafficking Advisory Board, and President of the International Public Policy Institute. She is also an active supporter of the Topeka YWCA Center for Safety and Empowerment. Sharon has presented multiple times about Human Trafficking at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. She currently co-chairs the Topeka Shawnee County Human Trafficking Coalition. Fraidy Reiss - Founder/Executive Director, Unchained At Last Fraidy was 19 when her family arranged for her to marry a man who turned out to be violent. But with no education or job, in an insular religious community where only men have the right to grant a divorce, she felt trapped. Still trapped at age 27, Fraidy defied her husband and community to become the first person in her family to go to college. She graduated from Rutgers University at age 32 as valedictorian (called “commencement speaker” at Rutgers). Her family declared her dead, but Fraidy persevered: With her journalism degree, she was hired as a reporter for the Asbury Park Press in New Jersey, eventually getting promoted to the paper’s elite investigative-reporting team.
    [Show full text]
  • Child Labor Rules for Employing Youth in Restaurants and Quick-Service Establishments Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
    U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (July 2010) Fact Sheet #2A: Child Labor Rules for Employing Youth in Restaurants and Quick-Service Establishments Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) This fact sheet provides general information concerning the application of the federal child labor provisions to restaurants and quick-service establishments that employ workers who are less than 18 years of age. For detailed information about the federal youth provisions, please read Regulations, 29 CFR Part 570. The Department of Labor is committed to helping young workers find positive, appropriate, and safe employment experiences. The child labor provisions of the FLSA were enacted to ensure that when young people work, the work does not jeopardize their health, well-being, or educational opportunities. Working youth are generally entitled to the same minimum wage and overtime protections as older adults. For information about the minimum wage and overtime e requirements in the restaurant and quick-service industries, please see Fact Sheet # 2 in this series, Restaurants and Quick Service Establishment under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Minimum Age Standards for Employment The FLSA and the child labor regulations, issued at 29 CFR Part 570, establish both hours and occupational standards for youth. Youth of any age are generally permitted to work for businesses entirely owned by their parents, except those under 16 may not be employed in mining or manufacturing and no one under 18 may be employed in any occupation the Secretary of Labor has declared to be hazardous. 18 Years Once a youth reaches 18 years of age, he or she is no longer subject to the federal of Age child labor provisions.
    [Show full text]
  • Instructions for Guardianship of a Child in Juvenile Court Based on Written Consent of the Parents
    INSTRUCTIONS FOR GUARDIANSHIP OF A CHILD IN JUVENILE COURT BASED ON WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE PARENTS IMPORTANT! READ BEFORE USING THESE FORMS AND INSTRUCTIONS ND Legal Self Help Center staff and Court employees can’t help you fill out the form(s). If you’re unsure how to proceed, or need legal advice or legal representation, consult a lawyer licensed to practice in North Dakota. To protect your rights, carefully read this information and any instructions to which you’re referred. When you represent yourself, you’re expected to know and follow the law, including: • State or federal laws that apply to your case; • Case law, also called court opinions, that applies to your case; and • Court rules that apply to your case, which may include: o North Dakota Rules of Juvenile Procedure; o North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure; o North Dakota Rules of Court; o North Dakota Rules of Evidence; o North Dakota Administrative Rules and Orders; and o Any local court rules. Links to the state laws, case law, and court rules can be found at www.ndcourts.gov. When you represent yourself, you’re held to the same requirements and responsibilities as a lawyer, even if you don’t understand the rules or procedures. If you’re unsure if these forms and instructions suit your circumstances, consult a lawyer. A glossary with definitions of legal terms is available at www.ndcourts.gov/legal-self-help. These instructions and forms aren’t a complete statement of the law. They cover the basic process for asking a North Dakota Juvenile Court to appointment a guardian of a child because the parents agree in writing.
    [Show full text]
  • Consent to Medical Treatment for Minor Children.Pdf
    Consent to Medical Treatment for Minor Children: Overview of North Carolina Law Jill D. Moore, JD, MPH UNC School of Government April 2015 Who may give consent for a minor to receive medical treatment? It may seem obvious that the answer would be the minor’s parent, and indeed that is the general rule. However, a number of different circumstances may produce a different answer. Some minors are in the custody or care of an adult other than a parent. Sometimes an emergency or other urgent circumstance precludes obtaining parental consent before treatment is provided. In some cases when a parent refuses to consent to treatment, the parents’ decision may be overridden by a court in order to protect the child or the public health. Finally, in some limited circumstances, minors are legally permitted to give consent to treatment on their own. Minor Children and Capacity to Consent to Treatment There are many instances in which the law treats children differently from adults, for clear developmental reasons: children simply are not capable of functioning as adults until they acquire sufficient maturity. For this reason, minor children – persons under the age of 18 – are generally prohibited from carrying out legal acts such as entering contracts. Another way of putting this is to say that minors do not have the legal capacity to carry out the daily affairs of adults. In the context of health care, the general rule is that minors lack the legal capacity to give consent to treatment. Therefore, the general rule is that a minor needs an adult to give consent to health care on the minor’s behalf.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Issue
    YOUTH &POLICY No. 116 MAY 2017 Youth & Policy: The final issue? Towards a new format Editorial Group Paula Connaughton, Ruth Gilchrist, Tracey Hodgson, Tony Jeffs, Mark Smith, Jean Spence, Naomi Thompson, Tania de St Croix, Aniela Wenham, Tom Wylie. Associate Editors Priscilla Alderson, Institute of Education, London Sally Baker, The Open University Simon Bradford, Brunel University Judith Bessant, RMIT University, Australia Lesley Buckland, YMCA George Williams College Bob Coles, University of York John Holmes, Newman College, Birmingham Sue Mansfield, University of Dundee Gill Millar, South West Regional Youth Work Adviser Susan Morgan, University of Ulster Jon Ord, University College of St Mark and St John Jenny Pearce, University of Bedfordshire John Pitts, University of Bedfordshire Keith Popple, London South Bank University John Rose, Consultant Kalbir Shukra, Goldsmiths University Tony Taylor, IDYW Joyce Walker, University of Minnesota, USA Anna Whalen, Freelance Consultant Published by Youth & Policy, ‘Burnbrae’, Black Lane, Blaydon Burn, Blaydon on Tyne NE21 6DX. www.youthandpolicy.org Copyright: Youth & Policy The views expressed in the journal remain those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Editorial Group. Whilst every effort is made to check factual information, the Editorial Group is not responsible for errors in the material published in the journal. ii Youth & Policy No. 116 May 2017 About Youth & Policy Youth & Policy Journal was founded in 1982 to offer a critical space for the discussion of youth policy and youth work theory and practice. The editorial group have subsequently expanded activities to include the organisation of related conferences, research and book publication. Regular activities include the bi- annual ‘History of Community and Youth Work’ and the ‘Thinking Seriously’ conferences.
    [Show full text]
  • Incest Statutes
    Statutory Compilation Regarding Incest Statutes March 2013 Scope This document is a comprehensive compilation of incest statutes from U.S. state, territorial, and the federal jurisdictions. It is up-to-date as of March 2013. For further assistance, consult the National District Attorneys Association’s National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse at 703.549.9222, or via the free online prosecution assistance service http://www.ndaa.org/ta_form.php. *The statutes in this compilation are current as of March 2013. Please be advised that these statutes are subject to change in forthcoming legislation and Shepardizing is recommended. 1 National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse National District Attorneys Association Table of Contents ALABAMA .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 ALA. CODE § 13A-13-3 (2013). INCEST .................................................................................................................... 8 ALA. CODE § 30-1-3 (2013). LEGITIMACY OF ISSUE OF INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES ...................................................... 8 ALASKA ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 ALASKA STAT. § 11.41.450 (2013). INCEST .............................................................................................................. 8 ALASKA R. EVID. RULE 505 (2013)
    [Show full text]
  • The Drinking Age
    Vermont Legislative Research Shop Lowering the Drinking Age The minimum legal drinking age fluctuated throughout the second half of the 20th century, yielding mixed results. After prohibition was repealed in 1933, almost every state set the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) at 21 years.1 In 1970 Congress lowered the voting age to 18, which began a movement to lower the drinking age, as well. During the Vietnam era, many people were outraged that 18 year‐olds were fighting overseas yet could not have a drink. In the period between 1970 and 1975, 29 states lowered their MLDA to 18, 19 or 20. A study by Alexander Wagenaar revealed that in states that had lowered their minimum age there was a 15 to 20% increase in teen automobile accidents.2 This information influenced 16 states to raise their MLDA to 21 between 1976 and 1983. Pressure from groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) led to the signing of the Uniform Drinking Age Act by President Ronald Reagan on July 17, 1984.3 This act mandated a significant decrease in federal transportation funding for states that did not raise their MLDA to 21. Worldwide, the United States has the highest MLDA, with others ranging from birth to age 20.4 The majority of countries have a MLDA of 18. In most of these countries, however, the family teaches responsible drinking from a very young age. Since 1960, over one hundred studies have been conducted to analyze the effects of raising the MLDA. This research was examined by Alexander Wagenaar to determine the trends that appeared in the conclusions.5 Some of these studies provided evidence supporting a MLDA of 21, while most others found no conclusive results.
    [Show full text]
  • AGE of MAJORITY ACT of 1971 Act 79 of 1971
    AGE OF MAJORITY ACT OF 1971 Act 79 of 1971 AN ACT to define the age of majority or legal age and to prescribe and define the duties, liabilities, responsibilities, rights and legal capacity of persons 18 or more years of age. History: 1971, Act 79, Eff. Jan. 1, 1972. The People of the State of Michigan enact: 722.51 Short title. Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Age of Majority Act of 1971". History: 1971, Act 79, Eff. Jan. 1, 1972. 722.52 Adult of legal age; support payments for person 18 years of age or older. Sec. 2. (1) Except as otherwise provided in the state constitution of 1963 and subsection (2), notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a person who is at least 18 years of age on or after January 1, 1972, is an adult of legal age for all purposes whatsoever, and shall have the same duties, liabilities, responsibilities, rights, and legal capacity as persons heretofore acquired at 21 years of age. (2) A court may order support payments for a person 18 years of age or older as provided in 1 or more of the following: (a) Chapter 84 of the revised statutes of 1846, being sections 552.1 to 552.45 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (b) The child custody act of 1970, Act No. 91 of the Public Acts of 1970, being sections 722.21 to 722.29 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (c) The family support act, Act No. 138 of the Public Acts of 1966, being sections 552.451 to 552.459 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.
    [Show full text]