What standards do Israeli family courts use to approve underage marriages?

1. Legal baseline: 18 is the rule, exceptions are statutory

The Knesset’s Marriage Age Law (Amendment No. 6, 5774–2013) raised the statutory minimum age to 18 and replaced prior conditions for family-court marriage permits; the amendment explicitly retains a mechanism by which a Family Matters Court can authorize marriage for minors over 16 when “unique reasons” tied to the minor’s best interests exist ^{[1] [2]}. Several reporting outlets reiterate that any person under 18 “may not marry without special permission that is granted by family court in exceptional cases” ^[5].

2. What family courts actually consider in practice

Contemporary case coverage describes judges weighing the minors’ maturity, the quality of the relationship, family dynamics, socio‑economic factors, and foreseeable harms of denying the request — for example, the social and personal consequences of an out‑of‑wedlock pregnancy ^{[4] [3]}. Courts emphasize an individualized assessment focused on the child’s best interests and stress that approval should occur only where consent is free of familial pressure ^[3].

3. Who pushes back: prosecutors and social services

The Attorney General and state-appointed social workers have opposed some underage marriage petitions, citing professional assessments that underage marriage rarely serves minors’ best interests and should be permitted only in the “most exceptional cases” ^{[4] [3]}. The State Attorney’s office has published prosecutorial policy guidance addressing the offense of marrying a minor, showing institutional caution and oversight ^[2].

4. Case law and media: exceptional approvals, not a new norm

Media reports of a 2024 family-court approval for two 17‑year‑olds describe the ruling as “rare” or “unprecedented,” underlining that such permissions are exceptional rather than routine ^{[4] [6]}. Coverage notes judges grapple with the tension between what may be a pragmatically “good” decision in context (e.g., pregnancy) and the broader principle that child marriage is typically harmful ^[4].

5. Community practice vs. statutory framework

Reporting and advocacy sources note gaps between the law and on‑the‑ground practices in some Haredi and Arab communities, where informal or privately conducted underage marriages have occurred despite the change to 18 — and where compliance and reporting by religious authorities can be uneven ^{[7] [8]}. Rights advocates and international committees have repeatedly raised concerns about persistence of child and forced marriage in certain communities ^[7].

6. International and institutional context

Israel’s official reports to UN bodies repeat the statutory framework and the narrow exception for those over 16 based on best interests, while also pointing to prosecutorial guidelines and equality norms in domestic law ^[2]. Non‑governmental projects tracking child marriage evaluate Israel’s law change positively but continue to flag occurrences “under the radar” and the need for enforcement and community outreach ^{[7] [9]}.

7. Limits of available reporting and open questions

Available sources document the statutory standard ^[10] and the family court’s discretionary power for 16–17‑year‑olds, plus case‑level criteria used in recent media‑reported rulings ^{[1] [2] [4] [3]}. However, systematic data on how often courts grant such permits, the exact evidentiary threshold applied, regional variation, and long‑term outcomes for approved minors are not detailed in the provided reporting — available sources do not mention comprehensive statistics or uniform judicial guidelines beyond case descriptions ^{[4] [3]}.

8. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas

Judicial decisions reported in Israel Hayom and associated outlets emphasize individualized welfare-based reasoning and religious/social context ^{[3] [4]}, while state attorneys and social workers highlight child‑protection priorities and a presumption against approval ^{[2] [4]}. Advocacy groups frame the issue as one of enforcement and rights protection in communities where informal practices persist, indicating an agenda to strengthen prevention and reporting ^[7]. Readers should note each source’s vantage: court reporting focuses on legal reasoning in a single case, government reports on statutory framework and policy, and advocacy outlets on prevalence and enforcement gaps ^{[4] [2] [7]}.

If you want, I can compile the specific statutory text of Amendment No. 6 ^[11] and the State Attorney guidance referenced in the UN report — but those documents are not included in your search results, so I would need further source material to cite.