Child marriage in the UK continues because of legal loophole

[stumbledin]

" ... The reality is that child marriage is an invisible but thriving issue in the UK today. In 2019 a quarter of cases (27%, 363) dealt with by the governments Forced Marriage Unit involved children aged under 18. Karma Nirvana, who deliver the government funded National helpline for Honour Based Abuse has responded to 1041 contacts relating to child marriage cases since 2015. Alarmingly, some of the child marriages that we as specialist organisations have managed to prevent related to girls as young as 11 years-old.

Paradoxical to the government’s commitment to ending child marriage is that it remains legal for children to marryin the UK under laws dating back to before the second world war. A marriage to a child aged sixteen or seventeen can still legally be registered and while in England and Wales parental consent is required, this is far from being a safeguard. In practice, this loophole is frequently used to coerce children into marriages. At the same time there is no legal provision currently in place to prevent religious or customary child marriages, at any age, from taking place.

Existing forced marriage law does not automatically protect children from child marriage on account of their age. Unacceptably, the onus is on the child to secure their own protection under Forced Marriage law by speaking out against their own family and community which can have dangerous consequences and understandably manychildren are too terrified to do. ... "

ikwro.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Child-Marriage.pdf

So frightening for a young girl to not be safe in her own home.
.

There is a petition in relation to this, and I will post the link on the mysteriously difficult to find petition section of Talk. But what is a real shame is that the set up the petition on Change which is a pointless exercise ie if it had been on the Parliamentary petition web site it would have forced a HoC discussion.

You would think campaigning groups like IKWRO and Karma Nirvana would have known that.

A marriage to a child aged sixteen or seventeen can still legally be registered and while in England and Wales parental consent is required, this is far from being a safeguard

A 16 year old in Scotland does not require parental consent.

I'm sure this letter is well meaning, but I found it very confused. It reads as if the forced marriage of 11 year olds is legal in the UK, which clearly it isn't.

They are conflating at least 4 separate issues:

1. Forced marriage: already illegal at any age
2. Marriage of children below the age of 16 now resident in the UK, who have been legally married in another country
3. 'Marriage' of children under 16 in the UK, conducted outside the law.
4. The current legality of marriage of young people aged 16-17 being used as cover for forced marriage.

I agree that the minimum age of marriage should be raised to 18, but I don't think this muddled letter is going to help that cause.

And the talk of loopholes is very confusing - the Government doesn't need to close a loophole to prevent under 16s being married in the UK, because that's already against the law. Under 16s cannot be legally married and they can't consent to sex, so it is very clearly unlawful to marry them. The fact that some families choose to ignore this and conduct religious ceremonies is not due to a loophole in the law, but the fact that some people flaunt it - it's an enforcement issue, not a loophole issue.

It's disappointing to see such a poor submission to Government on this important subject.

I'm confused.

In England it is legal to marry with parental consent at 16.

It's definitely not legal to marry at 11.

Are they talking about religious weddings only? I know there is a problem with women believing they are legally married when they aren't.

Link ikwro.org.uk/child-marriage-abuse/

It is true that the WHO etc says minimum age for sex/ marriage should be 18 and we are out of step.

They don't mention age of consent though which surely goes hand in hand?

There is no breakdown of the ethnicity etc of the under 18s marriage stats they provide.

They give no proposals about how to stop marriages of under 16s in religious ceremonies. I don't see how changing the law to 18 would stop girls of eg 13 being married in these circs.

On another page they talk about fgm but don't mention it usually takes place outside the UK, similarly what I have read about forced marriage is often done overseas as well.

I am sure they do a lot of good for the communities they serve.

But it's just not true that 11yo can marry legally in the UK.

A child is someone under 18 years old.

NSPCC
"Definitions of a child
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) defines a child as everyone under 18 unless, "under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier".

England
In England a child is defined as anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. Child protection guidance points out that even if a child has reached 16 years of age and is:

living independently
in further education
a member of the armed forces
in hospital; or
in custody in the secure estate
they are still legally children and should be given the same protection and entitlements as any other child (Department for Education, 2018a).

Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland the The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 defines a 'child' as a person under the age of 18.

Scotland
In Scotland, the definition of a child varies in different legal contexts, but statutory guidance which supports the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014, includes all children and young people up to the age of 18

Wales
Section 3 of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 states that a child is a person who is aged under 18.
learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system/children-the-law#

Not sure what point you're trying to make with that cut and paste, @R0wantrees? No ones arguing against raising the age of marriage to 18. We're just saying that this letter doesn't make the case for that clearly.

Re-reading the letter, it's actually quite embarrassing. Self-referencing their own Ted Talk is cringe. Put some actual data and evidence in, FFS.

That the definition of child is under 18. Its increasingly common for people to refer to 16-18's (or even 14-18's) as 'young people' rather than children. In context of discussion about legal protections and responsibilities, its relevant.

16 / 17 is young for marriage, but is it any worse than being able to choose to get pregnant at that age? (And that doesn't need parental consent.)

You can choose to get pregnant, which has very long term consequences, but you can't marry the father because you aren't old enough for that kind of decision?

Also, is there evidence that the marriages of 16 / 17 year olds are highly unstable compared to other marriages?

I would also question if there is any evidence that this provision is being misused (forced marriage of 16/17 year olds) in white British society, or indeed in various British ethnic minorities.

If this is just a problem for certain particular ethnic groups, I'm not sure you ban it for everyone because of that? After all, the real issue would be forced marriage, not marriage at 16/17.

Also, something isn't a "legal loophole" if it was always the clear intention of parliament to allow it. That's just a case of where you disagree with the law; not that it's a "loophole". Or maybe, I guess, you could argue it's being used in an unintended way that parliament didn't foresee, and a "loophole" in that sort of way.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/forced-marriage-visas-for-men-who-force-teenagers-into-marriage-f82wkldp3?shareToken=7c4c3299905e0a557d953097c32d2790

The debate about this has been going on since 2018. Savid Javid launched an inquiry. It is now time to act.

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow

I'm sure this letter is well meaning, but I found it very confused. It reads as if the forced marriage of 11 year olds is legal in the UK, which clearly it isn't.

They are conflating at least 4 separate issues:

1. Forced marriage: already illegal at any age
2. Marriage of children below the age of 16 now resident in the UK, who have been legally married in another country
3. 'Marriage' of children under 16 in the UK, conducted outside the law.
4. The current legality of marriage of young people aged 16-17 being used as cover for forced marriage.

I agree that the minimum age of marriage should be raised to 18, but I don't think this muddled letter is going to help that cause.

And the talk of loopholes is very confusing - the Government doesn't need to close a loophole to prevent under 16s being married in the UK, because that's already against the law. Under 16s cannot be legally married and they can't consent to sex, so it is very clearly unlawful to marry them. The fact that some families choose to ignore this and conduct religious ceremonies is not due to a loophole in the law, but the fact that some people flaunt it - it's an enforcement issue, not a loophole issue.

It's disappointing to see such a poor submission to Government on this important subject.

Agree totally with this, apart from the part where it states minimum age of marriage should be raised to 18 considering the minimum age to enlist in the army is 16!

No ones arguing against raising the age of marriage to 18. We're just saying that this letter doesn't make the case for that clearly

I don't support raising the age to 18. I also don't support the blanket application of "child" to young people between the ages of 16- 18.

I think the Scots Law position on this is sensible and reflects reality.

Latest figures from the ONSshow 43 teenage boys and 140 teenage girls were married with parental consent in 2017, though it is thought the recorded data does not reflect the number marrying in non-legal religious and customary ceremonies.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56982309

I would also question if there is any evidence that this provision is being misused (forced marriage of 16/17 year olds) in white British society, or indeed in various British ethnic minorities.

If this is just a problem for certain particular ethnic groups, I'm not sure you ban it foreveryonebecause of that? After all, the real issue would be forced marriage, not marriage at 16/17.

There are actually very few marriages of under 18s in 'white British society' so bringing it into line with other laws would not have a huge negative impact on what is a parental right.

Getting pregnant is not about entering into a contract and is a separate issue.

The “with parental consent” clause in E&W law is meant to protect young people from very poor decisions or coercion by older partners. It doesn’t help at all where the pressure is coming from the parents themselves. I agree that increasing the age of marriage to a flat 18 across the UK would protect some vulnerable young people. Other actions are also required to protect other abuses.

Is there evidence that religious “marriages” of under 16s are widely carried out in the UK? If that is a problem then you could make it an offence to carry out a purported marriage of children as long as you worded it very carefully.

I also don't support the blanket application of "child" to young people between the ages of 16- 18

It's very important for safeguarding. If people under 18 aren't legally children, the protections that can be offered to them are greatly reduced.

However, the law doesn't prevent people under 18 from acting as adults when they have the capacity to do so.

@Imnobody4

Latest figures from the ONSshow 43 teenage boys and 140 teenage girls were married with parental consent in 2017, though it is thought the recorded data does not reflect the number marrying in non-legal religious and customary ceremonies.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56982309

I would also question if there is any evidence that this provision is being misused (forced marriage of 16/17 year olds) in white British society, or indeed in various British ethnic minorities.

If this is just a problem for certain particular ethnic groups, I'm not sure you ban it foreveryonebecause of that? After all, the real issue would be forced marriage, not marriage at 16/17.

There are actually very few marriages of under 18s in 'white British society' so bringing it into line with other laws would not have a huge negative impact on what is a parental right.

Getting pregnant is not about entering into a contract and is a separate issue.

It seems to me quite absurd to raise the age of marriage to 18 but keep the age of consent at 16.

And getting married at 16 is not "a parental right" in Scotland. It is a young person's right. I see no reason to take that right from them. There are already laws to deal with forced marriage.

There are actually very few marriages of under 18s in 'white British society' so bringing it into line with other laws would not have a huge negative impact on what is a parental right.

OK fair point that it may make little difference to people in practice.

But it's still 16/17 year olds losing their rights to marry, because of the bad behaviour of an alien culture that has come in from outside. White British people lose their rights because some brown people can't behave themselves and have a backwards culture?

Getting pregnant is not about entering into a contract and is a separate issue.

If you're more conservative you (perhaps) aren't going to see it as a separate issue at all. You are maybe going to think that having children is (ideally) tied up with stable relationships and we have an institution for that. So if you're old enough to be raising a family then you should be old enough to have access to the institution of marriage.

But it's still 16/17 year olds losing their rights to marry, because of the bad behaviour of an alien culture that has come in from outside. White British people lose their rights becausesomebrown people can't behave themselves and have a backwards culture?

Really? Are you saying that no 'white British' pregnant 16 year old has been pressured into marriage - where do you think the phrase shotgun wedding comes from?

My view is that it is a no brainer - a 16 year old waiting 2 years to marry set against a 16 year old being raped every night for 2 years. These are British children we're talking about.

White British people have their own problems with not being able 'to behave themselves.'

I posted this quite late last night and skim read it, and was more taken aback that the groups involved had opted to a petition on Change (though it may be that adopted a personal petition as a show of support rather than thinking on a campaign level).

And sort of assumed it was part of the campaign against Forced Marriages ie that if someone was being controlled by their family they could enter a religious marriage (as young as 11?)

And also wondered if it wasn't also an issue for some cults which seem to still thrive.

(Does seem strange that CofE, Jewish and Quaker services have status but other religions dont? rightsofwomen.org.uk/get-information/family-law/marriage/ )

We have a fair few laws set at 16/ 17 and I think there would be knock on especially for age of consent.

Well in Wales you can now vote at 16, so I cannot see them increasing the age of marriage to 18 now.

I don’t think that banning under 18 marriages would necessarily be a vote loser amongst the teenaged electorate. The politically engaged ones (ie the voters) are fairly well informed about the problems of forced marriage and most of them think that getting married at 16 is madness - which is why such a minuscule proportion actually do it.

I’d much rather 15/16 year olds are married with parental consent than be having random sex without parental involvement resulting in pregnancies..

The parental conscent changes the dynamic because they are legally able to lay their terms of the marriage before accepting it snd therefore able to protect their kids...

I think the massive deal around these issues is because marriages breaking is a taboo in the UK, but in many other places it’s just known as “protected relationship”. The parents can still ask their kids to try avoid pregnancy etc, but shall that fail, at least the parents were involved with both parents and would help them secure the child as it’s their responsibility.

In countries where social care is lacking, this puts the responsibility on the parents to protect their grandchild and is better than teenagers getting pregnant by random people

So I think we need to keep things in perspective

Many women here advise to not get pregnant until after marriage to secure your rights..

Some parents protect their daughters rights by ensuring that shall she insist on having a relationship that it should be protected and with their conscent...

@justasking111

Well in Wales you can now vote at 16, so I cannot see them increasing the age of marriage to 18 now.

And in Scotland in purely Scottish elections. I can't see the age of consent being raised to 18 and don't really see the need for it or for marriage age to be raised.

I would also oppose the introduction of the need for parental consent in Scotland (I doubt that would happen)

@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere

I don’t think that banning under 18 marriages would necessarily be a vote loser amongst the teenaged electorate. The politically engaged ones (ie the voters) are fairly well informed about the problems of forced marriage and most of them think that getting married at 16 is madness - which is why such a minuscule proportion actually do it.

I disagree- people don't like rights being taken from them, even if it's a right they might not actually exercise.