Reply #10: Emancipation Requires more than a Girl getting Pregnant. [View All]

[happyslug]

Now California law might be different, but the English Common Law rule on Emancipation is such emancipation is do to an ACT OF THE PARENTS that the child is no longer under the CARE, CONTROL and SUPERVISION of his or her Parents. Furthermore Emancipation covers the right to entered into a valid enforceable contract. Un-emancipated Minors can only enter into Voidable Contracts (i.e. Contracts the minor can enforce against the other side BUT the other side can NOT enforce against the Un-emancipated Minor).

Note it is NOT the act of the Child that makes the Child Emancipated, it is the act of the Parents. In 1993 the Pennsylvania Superior Court even ruled that even marriage does NOT make a child emancipated (This was long after the Same Court had ruled that pregnancy also does NOT make a child an emancipated minor). All of these decision follow English Common Law rules on the issue of Minor's Emancipation.

Before the early 1970s (When all of the states started a mass movement to reduce the age to made valid enforceable controls from 21 to 18), the mere fact that someone joined the Military, went away from home to go to Collage or even getting a Commission as an Officer in the US Army did NOT make such a minor an emancipated minor. Such acts were EVIDENCE of Emancipation but NOT proof of such emancipation and did not address the issue that under the Common Law being an Emancipation minor was NOT a permanent condition. Under the Common Law (which still the law in Pennsylvania and most states) Minors can move in and out of emancipation based on the fact the Minor goes back under the Care, Control and Supervision of their Parents and such Parents again ending such Care, Control and Supervision.

Parents can do Care, Control and Supervision through others (i.e. your teachers, other adults or even other minors), and by long distance (i.e. when you are in school) and in the military you are NOT really on your own. Thus it is up to the person trying to prove a minor is or had been Emancipated NOT the minor proving he or she had NOT been emancipated.

Now the political argument of the 1960s to reduce the age of majority to 18 was do to the fact people were being drafted at 18 so why could they not vote? This argument was dieing when the switch occurred (The draft ended for all practical purposes in 1972). In fact the main push to reduce the age from 21 to 18 came from Collages and banks who were tired of dealing with parents when it came time to arrange student (and other) loans for minors between the ages of 18 and 21.

As long as most college students parents paid for their Education (or paid by the WWII era GI Bill) the problem of giving loans to 18-21 year olds was NOT a problem. With the mass entrance of Women into Collages during the 1960s you had the first group of Students who were still under age 21 whose parents were NOT paying for their education and it was unclear if such students had ever ceased being under the Care, Control and Supervision of their Parents. Thus were such loans voidable by the Student? (The general answer was "yes").

Now a lot of parents were paying for their son's college (Remember we are talking about the 1960s and the days of the Collage deferment from the Draft) but a lot of students could NOT get their parents to co-sign (or worse given their parents economic situation the parents could NOT co-sign). This seems NOT to be a problem until the draft was abolished in 1972 and parents stopped paying for collage for their children. It was during this period that the States switched the age of majority to 18 NOT the late 1960s when the draft was in full swing.

Please note many states did NOT change the age of Majority to 18, instead just said minors between the ages of 18 and 21 are to be treated as if their were over 21. A technical difference, the last time it was important was in the late 1990s when the states started to crack down on underage Smoking. Most State laws on Smoking used the term "minor" NOT the "age 18". The Courts than had to address the issue of what was meant by the term "Minor" in such statute. Some Trial Courts ruled it meant 21 (and to make sure no appellant court would rule the same way, the tobacco companies lobbied and had the State Legislature change the term from "Minor" to "Anyone under age 18").

My point here is to show that Emancipation requires something MORE than a teenage girl getting pregnant. Now the Same courts that made the above emancipation rules ALSO set the Rules as to Custody and Visitation of any resulting child of such pregnancy. The Courts have ruled that the under 18 mother can NOT become an emancipated Minor even after she gives birth to her child, but when it comes to custody of the New Born child, the dispute is between the Mother and Father of the newborn, the grandparents have little legal standing when it comes to Custody and Visitation of their Grandchild EVEN IF THE MOTHER OF THE CHILD IS STILL UNDER THE CARE, CONTROL and SUPERVISION of the Grandparents. Sounds stupid, but it works. I have had several such situation in my practice and it is the best resolution of the problem of teenage mothers.

Yes, I did NOT address the issue of the California Proposal just wanted to address the issue of Emancipation which I have found most people get wrong (I am going to leave that up to the people of California). I will also NOT address the problem if "Incest" or "Sexual Molestation" except to note while such things happen (And I have had cases with those issues) most of my teenage pregnant clients are NOT the product of such situations. Teenagers have sex and get pregnant with their teenage (or older) friends much more than they get pregnant through Incest or Sexual Molestation.