• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • News
  • Business
  • Technology
  • Marketing
  • Entertainment
  • Opinions
  • About
  • Contribute

Group Blawg

Fresh Insight into Popular Legal Topics

You are here: Home / Archives for New York

New York

New York State Bans Child Marriage

June 22, 2017 by Steven Kinnunen Leave a Comment

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law a bill to prohibit marriage involving minors under age 17. Seventeen-year-olds can still marry with parental consent and judicial approval, but there will be no more marriages in New York state for younger teens. The new statute went into effect July 20, 2017.

Under the previous 1929 statute, teens as young as 14 could marry with parental consent and a judge’s approval, but they couldn’t divorce until they reached the age of 18. A similar bill to raise the marriage age was introduced in the New York legislature in 2016, but failed to pass the lower house’s Judiciary Committee.

State records indicate that 3,850 minors were married in New York State in 2000-10. Girls represented more than 80 percent of the young newlyweds, with many marrying significantly older men. According to New York Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, Democrat from Scarsdale, who sponsored the bill in the lower house, “Child marriage is just not a problem that occurs in countries on the other side of the globe, but it happens right here in our very own back yard. Child marriage is forced marriage. It is driven by poverty, deeply embedded beliefs and signifies a pervasive discrimination against young girls.”

New Jersey Governor Refuses to Sign Similar Minor Marriage Ban

Meanwhile, in neighboring New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie recently refused to sign a bill that would have barred marriage outright for anyone under 18. The governor’s conditional veto message explained that “the severe bar this bill creates is not necessary to address the concerns voiced by the bill’s proponents and does not comport with the sensibilities and, in some cases, the religious customs, of the people of this state.” If the New Jersey Legislature amends the bill to provide for exceptions covering 16- and 17-year-olds, the governor indicated a willingness to sign the bill into law.

Advocates of legislation raising the marriage age are skeptical of parental and judicial consent provisions that allow persons aged 16, 17 or even younger to marry. They claim that parental consent can simply present a respectable front for parental coercion, and that teen girls are pressured to say the right things to obtain a judge’s approval where court permission is necessary to marry below a certain age.

Fraidy Reiss, an activist opposed to coerced child marriage, told the New York Times: “The judicial review process is evil because it puts the onus on a 17-year-old girl to find a way out of this situation. If she tells the judge she does not want to marry, her parents will know she said that. We have seen parents retaliate in many ways — locking a girl in her room or taking her overseas and forcing her to marry there.”

The legislative movement to raise marriage ages around the country is gaining momentum, with similar bills pending in Texas, Connecticut, Missouri, and other states. Virginia raised its marriage age to 18 last year, with exceptions for minors 16 or older who have been emancipated by court order.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Marriage, New York

Attorneys Discuss Legal Ethics of Social Media Evidence

August 4, 2011 by Archives Leave a Comment

But before the hegemonic rise of social media, lawyers couldn’t use all evidence available to them simply because it existed. There are ethical rules that attorneys must abide by, and that doesn’t change simply because social media marks new and untested territory. Writing for the New York Law Journal, Christopher Boehning and Daniel Toal point to three recent ethics decisions that may shed a light on the future of social media use for lawyers. These ethical quandaries include the debate over social media use among jurors, propriety issues surrounding social media, and the prospect of “friending” potential witnesses.

On the topic of juror monitoring, for example, the New York County Lawyers’ Association wrote an opinion affirming that “passive monitoring of jurors, such as viewing a publicly available blog or Facebook page,” is ethical conduct, as long as the lawyer doesn’t extend this reach to direct or even indirect social contact, meaning likely that lawyers cannot friend or follow current or potential jurors on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

The New York City Bar is more accepting when it comes to the prospect of contacting potential witnesses via social networks. An attorney can, they ruled, “use her real name and profile to send a ‘friend request’ to obtain information from an unrepresented person’s social networking website without also disclosing the reasons for making the request.” NYC attorneys cannot, however, contact witnesses under a false name or create a profile “tailed to the background and interests” of the witness in order to gain information.

There’s another important social media and law dilemma that goes unmentioned in Boehning and Toal’s article: the question of whether lawyers should be permitted to connect with judges through social media. So far, this question has been monitored on a state-by-state basis, with little input from the American Bar Association (although, the ABA says it is weighing the issue carefully). Here in California, judges and lawyers don’t have much to work with, aside from a 2010 California Judges Association opinion, which warns judges to be careful. “In short, notwithstanding the explosion of participation in online social networking sites, judges should carefully weigh whether the benefit of their participation is worth all the attendant risks,” the opinion concludes.

Of course, that doesn’t mean lawyers have ceased debating the subject. “It’s a poor idea for judges to participate in social media because you don’t know who’s reading what you post,” says San Jose federal Judge Jeremy Fogel. Northern District Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal takes the opposite approach, and accepts social media as mostly harmless. “It allows you to personalize yourself and reveal facets of your life and personality to a broader range of people,” he says. “Judges, I think, are at an unfortunate disadvantage because we are somewhat constrained in taking advantage of reasons to be on a social network.”

Investigation into the defendant or plaintiff’s social networking profiles has notoriously become a part of divorce law and employment law. In the past, lawyers have been caught trolling a spouse’s profile for an indication of adultery, and employers have caught employees betraying their false use of sick days. Everyone should be careful when using social networks like Facebook and Twitter, understanding that nothing you post online is ever fully private. But that doesn’t mean that lawyers have full reign to collect evidence without regulations.

Photo Credit: GJELblogger

Filed Under: News, Technology Tagged With: California, Lawyers, New York, social media, technology

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • How Filing for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Will Affect the Boy Scouts of America
  • Liabilities of Not Getting a Flu Shot
  • Early Impacts of AB 5 in California
  • When Doctors Have to Offer Untested Procedures
  • FDA Investigating Other Potential Carcinogen Risks
  • Personal Injuries and Winter Driving
  • The Dangers of Expedited Drug Approvals
  • Washington’s New Vaccination Law
  • The Legal Battles of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline
  • The Prevalence of Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs)

Categories

Copyright © 2023