Opinion ID: 1744621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Amendment to legislative act by codification

Text: We first address a matter that is relevant to both the issue of the children's determination of dependency-neglect and the voiding of the marriage. That issue concerns the validity of the Arkansas Code Revision Commission's (the ACRC) amendment to Act 441 of 2007 (Act 441) entitled An Act to Amend Provisions of the Arkansas Code to Reconcile Inconsistencies Regarding the Minimum Age to Marry, which raised the minimum age to marry in the State of Arkansas to eighteen years of age. Act 441 reads as follows: (1) In order for a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is not pregnant to obtain a marriage license, the person must provide the county clerk with evidence of parental consent to the marriage. (2) The county clerk may issue a marriage license to a person who is younger than eighteen (18) years of age and who is not pregnant after the county clerk receives satisfactory evidence of parental consent to the marriage under subsection (c) of this section. In its codification, however, the ACRC determined that the General Assembly's intent in enacting Act 441 was to set the minimum age to marry at eighteen, the sole exception being in the case of pregnancy of one party when either party was under the age of eighteen. Because of this, the ACRC removed the word not in Arkansas Code Annotated § 9-11-102(b)(1) and (2) immediately preceding the word pregnant. See § 9-11-102(b) (Repl.2008). Porter urges that the ACRC had no authority to do this and, therefore, his consent to his daughter's marriage, though she was not pregnant, was lawful. The attorney ad litem for D.P., however, asserts that the statute was in force as amended by the ACRC at the time of the marriage, and that because sixteen-year-old D.P. was not pregnant at the time of the marriage, any consent by a parent was not authorized by statute, and her marriage is invalid. The trial judge disagreed and found that the ACRC did not have the authority to modify the law. The trial judge was correct. The ACRC lacked the authority to amend Act 441 in its codificationwhich became § 9-11-102(b) in a manner that changed the meaning and substance of Act 441. This is made clear in the Arkansas Code, which sets forth the powers of the ACRC to amend the Code. See Ark.Code Ann. § 1-2-303(d)(1) (Repl.2008). The only provision that could possibly be read to authorize the revision in this case is § 1-2-303(d)(1)(C), which grants the ACRC the authority to correct manifest typographical and grammatical errors. Under the facts before us, the ACRC's revision manifestly changed the substance and meaning of § 9-11-102(b). In its original form, § 9-11-102(b) allows Arkansas children of any age to marry if their parents give consent to the marriage. As amended by the ACRC, the statute sets the minimum age to marry at eighteen but allows only pregnant teenagers to marry with parental consent. ACRC's revision of § 9-11-102(b) exceeded its powers, and, as a result, we hold that the original wording of Act 441 controls this case. [5]