An Israeli court has made an unprecedented ruling, allowing the marriage of two minors due to exceptional circumstances surrounding the girl's pregnancy and the couple's religious background.
In a rare judicial decision, an Israeli court has approved the marriage of two 17-year-olds despite their ages falling below the country's legal marriage threshold. Judge Itay Karmi, presiding over the case, characterized his ruling as "The best possible decision under the current circumstances" after carefully weighing the complex factors at play.
The couple, who adhere to a religious lifestyle, petitioned the court for permission to marry after the girl became pregnant. Their legal counsel argued that marriage would benefit both young individuals, shielding them from social embarrassment. The attorney emphasized the couple's maturity to make this decision and highlighted the support of their families.
However, the Attorney General opposed the request, basing the objection on an assessment by an appointed social worker. The social worker's report concluded that underage marriages generally do not serve minors' best interests and should only be sanctioned in the most exceptional cases.
Despite this opposition, Karmi granted the couple's request, citing the pregnancy as a crucial factor in his decision. "Given the present situation, the most appropriate course of action is to approve the boy and girl's petition," he stated. He underscored the case's complexity, distinguishing between a "good" decision and a "right" one. He noted that child marriages are typically viewed as an outdated practice that often prioritizes family interests over the minor's wellbeing. Consequently, the judge emphasized that courts must exercise heightened scrutiny when evaluating such requests.
The judge stressed the importance of assessing each case individually, with a focus on the minors' best interests. He stated that marriage should only be approved in exceptional circumstances when it's clear the decision stems from free will without familial pressure and when allowing the marriage would better serve the minor's interests than prohibiting it. Karmi determined that this particular case met these stringent criteria.
In his thorough examination of the case, Karmi considered several key factors: the couple's maturity levels, the quality of their relationship, their family dynamics, and their socio-economic background. He also weighed the potential ramifications of denying the request, including the social and personal challenges associated with an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
Karmi reasoned, "The concerning effects on the minors' wellbeing are inevitable due to the pregnancy itself. Therefore, permitting the marriage, considering the couple's personal, familial, and social context, will actually mitigate these effects." He posited that marriage would fortify the couple's bond and sense of security, alleviate social discomfort, and aid in their preparation for parenthood. Furthermore, he believed that granting permission would foster a sense of responsibility in both the couple and their families, ultimately serving the best interests of all involved.
