In the family law case of Abu-Nadal v. Abu-Nadal a fifteen year old girl lived in Ohio with her family. Her parents requested that she marry a man in her home country of Jordan, and she did. Soon after the marriage occurred she returned to Ohio and continued to live with her parents.
The girl was attempting to get a divorce from the man that she married. When this family law case was presented to a court, the judge did not find that the marriage emancipated the minor because the girl’s husband was still living in Jordan and because the mother was still supporting the girl.
In similar family law cases, the court has found that although in most instances if a minor enters into marriage they are emancipated, this is not true in all situations. In the family law case of Berks County Children and Youth Services v. Rowan, the minor who had been married was separated from her husband. She had nowhere to live and was in need of both financial and emotional support. In this case, the court ruled that because the minor was no longer being supported by her husband it was the parents’ responsibility to support the child and to provide her with care.
There are a number of other family law cases which have also ruled that the parents of a child are required to continue to provide support to a minor even if they have been married, such as in the case of Church v. Hancock.
In cases in which a minor has received parental consent in order to enter into a marriage, it is the duty of the court to decide whether or not the marriage is in the child’s best interest. A family law case may proceed in order to decide whether or not the child is in the position to be emancipated. If a child is not being properly cared for, is unable to support themselves, or is not receiving support from their spouse, family law cases will usually find that the child is not emancipated from their parents and the parents will continue to be responsible for providing support to the child.