HB 310-MARRIAGE AND MINIMUM AGE FOR MARRIAGE   3:54:46 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 310, "An Act relating to the minimum age of eligibility for marriage." 3:55:07 PM The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:55 p.m. 3:55:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE MATT CLAMAN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HB 310, relayed that by raising the minimum marriage age in Alaska to 18 with exceptions only for emancipated minors and active military members, HB 310 would put an end to what the U.S. has denounced as a "human rights abuse." He continued by saying that marriage before the age of 18 correlates with poor life outcomes, including discontinued education, increased risk of psychiatric disorders, and increased risk of poverty. For those who are happily married at an earlier age or who are close to someone who married young, the proposed legislation might seem like it would prevent young people from marrying the person whom they love. He said that in fact, the proposed legislation would delay rather than prevent the unions of those looking forward to decades of happy marriage. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to the Legislative Research Services (LRS) Report 18.018 dated 9/15/17, entitled "State Marriages Involving Minors, 2000-2015," included in the committee packet. He stated that Table 1 in the report reflects the number of Alaska marriages involving minors that occurred from 2000 to 2015. Table 1 indicates that the number of minors getting married in Alaska is in decline - from 73 in 2000 to 17 in 2015. He maintained that by asking an increasingly small number of people to wait a couple of years before getting married, Alaska would protect minors, who because of external pressure and lack of legal rights, might find themselves forced into marriages that they are later unable to leave. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN relayed that 70-80 percent of marriages involving children end in divorce; and when they do, because of limited education and work opportunities, former child brides and grooms have few options for supporting themselves and, in many cases, supporting their children. He maintained that in those instances, the economic burden falls to the state. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN maintained that under HB 310, the hope is to bring an end to a human rights abuse that affects not just individuals but society. 3:57:40 PM CERI GODINEZ, Staff, Representative Matt Claman, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Claman, prime sponsor of HB 310, relayed that the intent of HB 310 is to protect children from finding themselves in lifelong commitments in which they have no say and cannot escape. She paraphrased from the sponsor statement, included in the committee packet, which read as follows: Under current law, Alaskan minors cannot vote, serve on a jury, purchase a fire arm, open a checking account on their own, file a domestic violence protective order on their own, or work without the consent of their parents; yet they are old enough to be married with parental approval or a court ruling in the case of those under 16. This places a child in a particularly vulnerable situation where they could be coerced into marrying an abuser. If the relationship is abusive, leaving their spouse may be extremely difficult. House Bill 310 would protect minors by requiring them to have the same rights as adults before getting married. MS. GODINEZ continued with a sectional analysis of HB 310 as follows: Section 1 of HB 310 [page 1, lines 8-12] requires for marriage a person to be 18 years of age or older, an emancipated minor, or a member of the U.S. Armed Forces on active duty. Section 2 [page 1, line 14-15] relates to "arrival at majority upon marriage" and amends AS 25.20.020 to say that a person reaches the age of majority when he/she marries. Section 3, [page 2, line 4] repeals AS 25.05.171, which allows minors 16 to 18 years of age to marry with parental consent and minors 14 to 15 years of age to marry with judicial approval and parental consent. Section 4 [page 2, lines 5-8] states that the Act applies to people married on or after the effective date. 3:59:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to page 1, line 9, which read, "emancipated under AS 09.55.590", and asked for the definition of "emancipated." MS. GODINEZ answered that "emancipated" means the person is 16 years of age or older, living separately from his/her parents or guardians, and can prove himself/herself to be self-supporting. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to what was involved for emancipation; she asked why a minor wouldn't just petition for emancipation [to marry]. MS. GODINEZ expressed her understanding that under HB 310, a minor could seek emancipation and if successful, file for marriage. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if that is a loophole that almost subsumes the proposed legislation; the minor would not be required to be age 18 but could simply petition for emancipation. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that the difference between the two is as follows: to get emancipated one needs to have a court hearing with a judge to determine if the qualifications for emancipation are met; under HB 310, one can get married with parental consent without proving self-sufficiency. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for the number of children under age 16 who are married in Alaska each year. MS. GODINEZ replied that the number each year is between zero and one. She clarified that someone who is emancipated has most of the legal rights of an adult. She mentioned that the intent of HB 310 is to ensure that people entering marriage are on equal legal footing with their spouses. 4:02:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether those who are 16 through 18 years of age and get married are marrying against their wills. She related that she has a friend who was married at age 17 and has been married for 30 years; the friend had her parents' permission; and she wasn't forced to marry. MS. GODINEZ responded that there are many cases of people happily married at age 16. The proposed legislation would ask those people to wait a couple of years so that in the rare cases in which someone is being forced into marriage by external pressure from their families or other parties, that marriage would be prevented. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX summarized by saying that although there are many cases in which people get married at age 16 who have workable marriages, HB 310 proposes that they forego marriage for two years because of the extremely rare incidence in which someone is forced into marriage. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN referred to Table 1 of the LRS Report to point out that there are very few people getting married at ages 16 and 17, and of those, the clear majority get divorced and are left in very poor financial conditions due to low functioning during the marriage. 4:04:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH cited the LRS Report to point out that the number of marriages of those age 17 and under decreased from 73 in 2000 to 14 in 2015; it decreased to zero for the 15 and under age group; and there was only 1 in the 15 and under age group in the most recent five years shown on the chart. He offered that half of marriages end up in divorce regardless of age. He asked whether minors could be married in another state and have it recognized in Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN expressed his belief that under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" [U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1] a marriage in Nevada, for example, would be recognized in Alaska, if legal in Nevada. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether two people, who cannot legally be married in Alaska, could travel to another state, like Nevada, where it is permissible to be married at age 16, then return to Alaska to live. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN offered that he believes that to be the case; under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Alaska would have to recognize the marriage that occurred in Nevada. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked whether there are any religious issues associated with the proposed legislation or whether it would violate any religious jurisdiction. He clarified, "Is there a religious exemption?" MS. GODINEZ responded that the sponsor has not received any opposition from religious minorities. 4:08:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to page 1, lines 11-12, of HB 310 and asked if there is anyone under age 18 in the active military. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN relayed that with parental consent, someone can join the military at age 17. The military exemption is included for the occasion of someone being deployed and wanting to marry his/her sweetheart before leaving. He maintained that there is considerable history of people getting married just before deployment; there are spousal benefits, which is an important factor. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked about the language change on page 1, lines 4-5: the deletion of "one man and one woman" and the addition of "two natural persons". REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN explained that was recommended because that is what the U.S. Constitution requires. 4:10:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether under the military exemption, someone could enroll in the military at age 17 with parental consent and marry someone 16 years of age who is not in the military. He asked whether the exemption would exist for the 16-year-old spouse as well. MS. GODINEZ expressed her understanding that the exemption would apply to the underage military enrollee marrying an adult. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL pointed out that page 1, line 11, states that the member of the U.S. Armed Forces may be under age 18. He offered that a 17-year-old boy [in the military] can marry a 21-year-old woman but could not marry a 17-year-old woman not in the military. MS. GODINEZ agreed. REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN added that if the 17-year-old woman not in the military got emancipated, then the marriage could proceed. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether in the case of a 16- or 17- year-old who has received emancipation through a judge and really wanted to get married, parental consent would be necessary. MS. GODINEZ replied that in that scenario, the person would need judicial approval and parental consent. The exception to parental consent is an extreme case, in which the parents are unfit to decide the matter. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that his aunt got married at age 16 a long time ago; getting married at a younger age was more common then than today. He mentioned that marriage right before "shipping off to war" seems a little dated but conceded that it does occur. 4:13:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to the document, entitled "Child Marriage in America Executive Summary," provided by the sponsor and included in the committee packet. He asked for the definitions of "minors," "children," and "adults" and the lines of demarcation for the three groups. MS. GODINEZ expressed her belief that the words "children" and "minors" are being used interchangeably in the document, and they refer to people under the age of 18. She confirmed that anyone age 18 to 21 is not a minor. 4:15:09 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 310. 4:15:25 PM JEANNE SMOOT, Tahirih Justice Center (TJC), testified that the Tahirih Justice Center is a 20-year-old national legal services organization that works with survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and other violence and abuse, including forced marriages. She relayed that forced marriages can involve insidious forms of coercion, not only physical violence but extreme psychological abuse and threats. When that comes from a parent or a loved one, it does have the effect of "a gun to the head" or "shotgun wedding" for a teenage girl who is still very dependent on her family both emotionally and practically. MS. SMOOT stated that TJC has operated a special forced marriage initiative across the country and over the past several years; it worked on over 500 cases involving women and girls across the U.S. The organization also has analyzed the minimum marriage laws and exceptions for all 50 states and released a detailed report on how the current laws can facilitate forced marriages and other abuses and exploitation in the guise of marriage. MS. SMOOT continued by saying that based on the work that TJC has done, she has flagged a few of the concerns that Alaska's current law poses in terms of serious child protection risks. She stated that the parental consent exception can conceal parental coercion; among the forced marriage cases, most often the perpetrator is a parent. There are many reasons for this, but sometimes it's because a parent just wants to be rid of additional responsibility for a girl and to offload her onto whomever will take her. She said that regardless of the backgrounds of these cases, the common vulnerability is that children lack the legal rights and resources to stand up for themselves and get to safety. MS. SMOOT mentioned that the low age of 14 falls even below the state's legal age of consent for sex, and combined with the affirmative defense to prosecution for statutory rape that is in Alaska statute, it means that as long as the parties are married, one can essentially "roadmap" a "work around" for predators to access young girls that would otherwise be off limits. MS. SMOOT stated a third concern for flagging: Only a handful of the minors currently being married ever see a judge. The concern is that the approval process has only vague and subjective criteria and doesn't have other critical safeguards, like court-appointed counsel for the minor. She said that, unfortunately, for the reasons she has stated, Alaska's current laws make it far too easy for a host of horrors - ones that TJC staff see every day - lurking behind the marriage of an underage girl, no questions asked. She said, "That is the crux of the problem with current law." She maintained that TJC does not know how many of the cases behind the statistics are forced marriages of children. Based on TJC work and the vulnerabilities staff see, they are very concerned precisely because the children marrying today are marrying against national trends. They represent particularly vulnerable children who have no say in the matter and whose parents or partners are not listening to them ... (indisc.). MS. SMOOT stated that this year alone, 15 states have taken up reform bills; 8 more are on the horizon. Virginia passed a law like HB 310, but the year before the law passed, 182 minors were married, including one younger than age 15. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for a written copy of Ms. Smoot's testimony. 4:19:30 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, after ascertaining that there was no one else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 310. CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 310 would be held over.