Leading the fight against child marriage: a review of strategies and skills employed by The California Coalition to End Child Marriage

Introduction

Every minute, 23 girls are married somewhere in the world (1). At just 11 years old, Sherry Johnson from Florida was forced to marry a 20-year-old man who had raped her. This marriage led to a childhood lost to abuse, as she had six children by the time she was 17 years. Sherry’s experience (2) is a striking reminder that child marriage is not just a rare, distant issue but a harsh reality for thousands of people within the United States (US).

According to the United Nations (UN), child marriage is defined as any formal or informal union where one or both parties are under the age of 18 years. Child marriage is a form of abuse that threatens the well-being of millions of children (3,4). Despite widespread recognition of its harmful impacts, child marriage remains prevalent in both developing and developed nations. Globally, one in five women was married before their 18th birthday. In the least developed countries, that figure is almost double: 36% of girls are married before age 18 years (5). Worldwide, approximately 650 million women and girls and 115 million boys and men alive today were married before they turned 18 years (4,6). Clearly, girls are disproportionately impacted.

The UN recognizes child marriage as a form of gender-based violence (6). Girls who marry before age 18 years face a multitude of negative health and development outcomes. First, they have significantly higher risks of complications from early pregnancies, including maternal mortality and obstetric fistulas (3,4). Complications from pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death among girls ages 15 to 19 years (5). They are also more vulnerable to intimate partner violence and sexually-transmitted infections, including HIV (3,4). Child brides are more likely to drop out of school, limiting their opportunities for higher education and gainful employment. For example, among married girls aged 15 to 17 years globally, only 13% remain in school (7). This disadvantages children of child brides, perpetuates cycles of poverty and reduces the economic productivity of entire communities. Many child brides experience depression, anxiety, and other mental health challenges due to the pressures of early marriage and isolation from their peers and support networks (8,9).

Fortunately, the prevalence of child marriage is decreasing globally. South Asia has seen the most progress, where child brides dropped from nearly 50% to less than 30% in the last decade (4,5). Based on the latest data available, 21% women (aged 20 to 24 years) were married as children, representing a decrease from 25% a decade ago (1). An estimated 25 million child marriages have been prevented due to progress during the past decade (1). Despite a steady decline over the past decade, child marriage remains widespread, multiple crises, including conflict, climate change and natural disasters, and the consequences of the pandemic are threatening to reverse global progress towards ending child marriage (10).

Addressing child marriage is important in order to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 5: achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. Target 5.3 specifically calls for the elimination of all harmful practices, including child, early, and forced marriage. However, no region is currently on track to meet the SDG target of eliminating child marriage by 2030. In order to eliminate child marriage by 2030, global progress would need to be 12 times faster than the rate observed over the past decade (4,11). Without further acceleration, more than 150 million additional girls will marry before their 18th birthday by 2030 (4,11).

Rationale and knowledge gap

Despite the fact that most countries have committed to ending child marriage as part of the SDGs, globally about 19% of girls worldwide are married before age 18 years (3), which translates into an average of 12 million girls each year or tens of thousands of girls each day (1,11). While child marriage is often perceived as a problem limited to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), it remains a persistent and overlooked problem in the US as well. The US is the only UN member state that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (12). Studies in the US estimate that close to 300,000 child marriages occurred in the US between 2000 and 2018 (13-16). The rates were much higher among girls; estimates show that 86-87% of these marriages occurred among girls (14,16). Further, the majority of the time, the girls are married to an adult man. One study by Unchained At Last, a non-profit group dedicated to ending child marriage in the US, found that only 14% of the child marriages between 2000–2010 in the US occurred between two people under age 18 years (16).

Child marriage was legal in all 50 states until 2017. As of 2025, 37 of the 50 states in the US still allow child marriage, usually with parental consent, judicial approval, and/or if one of the parties is pregnant or has given birth (17,18). Only 13 states have laws that totally ban child marriage, no exceptions (19): Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington (18,20). Delaware was the first state to pass such a law in 2018. Despite its perception as a liberal state, California is one of four states that have no statutory minimum age when all exemptions are taken into account, along with Mississippi, New Mexico, and Oklahoma (20). The US State Department considers it a form of child abuse and a human rights abuse. Yet legal loopholes at the federal level allow for child marriage to continue; for example, there is no minimum age requirement to petition for a foreign spouse or fiancé visa (19).

In California, child marriage remains a controversial issue due to the state’s lack of a minimum age for marriage with exceptions. While California law prohibits sexual activity with minors under the age of 18 years (statutory rape), an exemption exists if the minor is married. This legal loophole has led to concerns about the vulnerability of young girls to forced marriages and sexual abuse. Opposers argue that the state’s current laws create an environment where minors, particularly young girls, are at risk of being married off under parental consent or judicial approval, sometimes with the justification of pregnancy or childbirth. In 2017, it was reported that over 1,000 minors were married in California between 2000 and 2016, many of them under the age of 16 years (21).

California’s lack of a statutory minimum age for marriage is compounded by the state’s inability to restrict child marriages even in cases where the minor is not pregnant. Additionally, minors in California cannot file for divorce if they are married before reaching the age of 18 years, which can trap them in abusive or unhappy marriages without a legal means to escape (22). Notably, in 2017, California lawmakers proposed a bill that would have raised the minimum marriage age to 18 years, with no exceptions. However, the bill faced significant opposition and was ultimately blocked (18,21).

Objective

The objective of this paper is to examine the leadership strategies employed by The California Coalition to End Child Marriage (CCECM), a nonprofit advocacy group founded by Global Hope 365 in 2019 (23). While several national organizations such as Unchained At Last and Equality Now have been instrumental in pushing for child marriage reform across the United States, there remains a need to understand the unique challenges and opportunities at the state level, particularly in California, where no minimum legal marriage age currently exists. This review highlights how the CCECM has leveraged coalition-building, public education, and political advocacy to promote legislation establishing 18 as the minimum marriage age with no exceptions. By focusing on California—a state often viewed as socially progressive yet lacking in legal protections against child marriage—this review provides insight into the complex relationship between cultural values, legal loopholes, and public health policy.

Global Hope 365, based in Tustin, California, is a nonprofit organization working to end harmful practices such as child marriage, human trafficking, and gender-based violence. Its founder, Rima Nashashibi, is a recognized advocate and community leader whose approach emphasizes inclusive leadership, survivor-centered advocacy, and community empowerment. The CCECM, under her leadership, was formally launched with a kickoff event at UC Irvine School of Law and now includes a broad network of partners ranging from UNICEF USA to local faith-based and political organizations. This paper aims to provide a practical analysis of the CCECM’s strategies, identify the leadership skills driving the movement forward, and assess how grassroots advocacy can generate public and political momentum for policy change in child protection. The findings may inform other state-level campaigns and serve as a model for advancing youth-focused legal reform across the US.

Leadership strategies

Global Hope 365 and the CCECM work together to advocate for clear, enforceable laws in California to set the minimum marriage age at 18 years without exceptions. To this end, they have employed three main effective leadership approaches: (I) coalition building; (II) public awareness campaigns; and (III) political advocacy.

Coalition building

Coalitions are crucial to grassroots campaigns and advocacy work. Coalitions are defined as groups of organizations, individuals, or entities that come together with a shared goal or purpose, typically to address a specific issue or advocate for a common cause (24). Ideally, coalition membership should be made up of diverse partners that bring different skills and ideas to the table. Building coalitions has numerous benefits. Diverse viewpoints and collaborative efforts lead to more robust problem-solving approaches. Coalitions can have an impact because they pool resources and capacities to address the issue. They can create energy because of a shared vision, leading to a stronger and more cohesive voice. There is strength in numbers and coalitions can aid in calling attention and amplifying voices. A leader backed by a coalition enjoys greater credibility because their initiatives reflect broad-based support, which is especially important in political advocacy where public perception influences the likelihood of success (25,26). Yet coalition building can be time-consuming, challenging work. It takes a lot of resources to engage and build the capacity of all of the members. They may also be bureaucratic and resistant to change.

Building and sustaining a successful coalition requires that leaders possess diverse skills. In order to form a coalition, helping others to see the synergies in their relationships with the other members, instead of their differences, is crucial. Undoubtedly, in advocacy work, there will be roadblocks; working with diverse partners with differing opinions, values, and agendas can be difficult. Being prepared to highlight a common ground and foster a shared sense of purpose can help build resilience and overcome barriers. The Coalition leaders have known how to bridge differences and foster unity and collaboration to help members see their common goals (27). When disagreements occur, the leaders have used their conflict resolution and problem-solving skills to mediate. Helping others to see their unique contributions to the group has helped to sustain member participation, which is all on a voluntary basis (28,29). Appreciating the diversity and individual differences and strengths within the members goes a long way in identifying and communicating the value and contributions of each member, helping to maintain momentum (25,29). Being able to inspire others is another key characteristic of a leader, as evidenced by this case (30). Cultural humility and sensitivity are also required, especially in a multicultural environment like Southern California (25). Global Hope 365’s board has several cultural backgrounds represented in leadership. In addition, as this work is both exciting and draining; a strong commitment to the mission has helped the leaders maintain a positive attitude, patience, and resilience when faced with adversity or setbacks.

The inclusion of a broad range of stakeholders was crucial to the development of the CCECM. Membership includes local law enforcement and District Attorneys, other relevant government agencies (such as Child and Family Services), community-based organizations providing services, survivors of child marriage, advocacy groups, political representatives, healthcare professionals, faith-based organizations, and community leaders who represent a unified effort. The CCECM has also established partnerships with national and international organizations like UNICEF, Equality Now, and Girls Not Brides to align local efforts with global movements.

Ending a harmful practice and form of abuse against children seems like a cause that would resonate with most people. And, in fact, it has not been difficult to garner public and political support for the mission of the CCECM in theory. However, opposition does exist. Legislation banning child marriage has similarly struggled in some states in the US, especially from conservative groups who argue that a ban on child marriage conflicts with American religious and cultural traditions. For example, in Wyoming, lawmakers rejected legislation to raise the minimum age of marriage to 16 years because it could limit parental rights and religious freedom (18). While California is viewed as a very progressive state, efforts to prohibit child marriage through statewide legislation have not been successful. In 2017, a bill aiming to prohibit marriages for individuals under 18 with no exceptions in California was introduced to the California State Senate (18). However, this initiative faced resistance from several organizations. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a nonprofit organization dedicated to defending individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people under the US Constitution, opposed the bill, arguing that the bill “unnecessarily and unduly intrudes on the fundamental rights of marriage without sufficient cause” (18,21). The ACLU emphasized that individuals, including minors, have the right to make personal decisions about marriage, and that the proposed legislation would infringe upon those rights. The organization further argued that such measures should not be implemented without a thorough and balanced consideration of the broader consequences, including the potential for unintended negative impacts on personal freedoms. In its advocacy, the ACLU called for policies that protect children while also respecting their autonomy and the bigger principles of privacy and liberty. In addition, the Children’s Law Center organization argued that, for some minors, “the decision to marry is based on positive, pro-social factors and that the marriage furthers their personal, short, and long-term goals.” And Planned Parenthood also expressed concerns that the legislation could limit reproductive choices and access to health services for minors (18,21,31). They warned that restricting marriage could inadvertently hinder a minor’s ability to make informed decisions about their own reproductive health, particularly in cases where they might be seeking medical care or counseling. Planned Parenthood highlighted that minors involved in child marriage more often than not face significant barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health services, which could become worse with more restrictive laws. Due to these oppositions, the bill was watered-down and was passed in 2018 did not ban child marriage but included additional safeguards for child marriage, such as requiring a judge and Family Court Services to interview both parties to the marriage and a guardian to ensure that coercion, child abuse or trafficking were not occurring (18,21). More recently, in February 2024, Assembly Bill 2924, known as “The End Child Marriage Act”, was introduced, aiming to ban marriages for individuals under 18 without exceptions. Despite the renewed efforts, the bill faced similar challenges, with opposition from organizations more worried about potential overreach and unintended consequences. As of January 2025, the bill’s progress remains uncertain.

Several strategies have been particularly effective in combating such opposition. Understanding the reasons behind the opposition to making child marriage illegal is crucial to developing an effective counter-argument. Using fact-based information and data in discussions with groups that support child marriage based on cultural or religious exceptions can be persuasive. Highlighting the fact that child marriage takes place amongst people from many economic and cultural backgrounds has also been important so that one group does not feel singled out. Aligning the mission of the CCECM with the international community has been a powerful reminder of the vast level of support to end this practice. The practice of child marriage is a violation of fundamental human rights as outlined in several international constitutions. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child highlight the right to free and full consent in marriage, which cannot be meaningfully given by people under 18 years. All child marriage is considered forced marriage by the UN (32). UNICEF provides guidance on passing legislation related to child marriage; which says that laws should specify 18 years as the minimum legal age for marriage; prohibit the marriage of girls as well as boys below that age; allow for the voidance of marriages involving children; and specify the requirement of free and full informed consent of both parties (32,33). Providing examples of the recommendations and guidance from the international community can make a compelling argument for why child marriage should be prohibited in the US. The US Department of State has consistently advocated for the prohibition of child marriage, emphasizing that such practices undermine human rights and hinder the achievement of gender equality. In its annual Human Rights Reports, the State Department highlights the prevalence of child marriage in various countries and underscores the importance of legal reforms to protect minors. Yet the US continues to condemn other nations for human rights violations while still permitting child marriage, a clear violation of human rights (14).

Public awareness campaigns

Launching public awareness campaigns is crucial to building further momentum for an issue. Global Hope 365 and the CCECM host numerous community events, workshops, and webinars to build rapport, understanding, and engagement. Public awareness is crucial to correct the misunderstanding that child marriage is prohibited in the US. Therefore, effective communication is crucial; getting the message across to many different populations is an important skill. The community educational events also highlight the risks and harms of child marriage, including early pregnancies, loss of education, and continuing poverty cycles. For example, leaders regularly speak at schools and universities, churches, meetings of local charitable organizations like the Rotary Foundation, and non-profits providing services to the community. The monthly coffee meet-up is another opportunity to hear from speakers on this topic. Survivors’ stories are extremely effective at educating the public about the horrors of child marriage. Survivors can outline the true motivations behind child marriage; girls are often forced to marry to cover up incest or abuse. In five years, the educational campaigns have reached almost one million interactions with the public.

Public education is important not only to build awareness amongst the community but to help the cause gain traction and encourage public pressure on lawmakers. “Outside lobbying”, or mobilizing public opinion to pressure lawmakers, often requires raising public awareness. An example of this is the letter-writing campaign that often accompanies community awareness events. People who attend community events are encouraged to complete digital letters and printed postcards expressing their support of ending child marriage, which are then sent by the CCECM to elected officials. To date, more than 12,000 postcards/letters have been sent by the CCECM. When public awareness is increased, the public may feel more invested in the issue. Further, these events often attract media attention; the more media coverage an issue gets, the harder it is for lawmakers to ignore (34). Additionally, Global Hope 365 leaders help to mentor others, such as youth and parents who express a passion for the cause, strong leadership potential, and exemplary citizenship in order to build a larger network of current and future leaders who will build the supporter base.

Political advocacy

The goal of ending child marriage in California will necessitate legislation to be passed, which requires the support of lawmakers. Therefore, the CCECM has primarily focused its efforts on political advocacy and building relationships with politicians and decision-makers. Inside lobbying, or direct engagement with policymakers, includes building relationships with politicians on both sides of the aisle—Democrats and Republicans alike (34). Garnering bipartisan support for an issue requires strong negotiation, diplomatic, and interpersonal relationship skills. Uniting individuals and groups often on “different sides of the fence” can be incredibly difficult. Navigating the challenges of uniting people from different political affiliations requires the ability to influence and communicate with diverse stakeholders. Helping others to see the collective vision and align their competing interests to achieve the intended goal is a careful balance of empathy, persuasion, and compromise. Successful political advocacy involves finding common ground, emphasizing shared values, and demonstrating the long-term benefits of cooperation, even when immediate interests may not fully align. Therefore, a clear understanding of the motivations of the stakeholders can help a leader leverage support. The CCECM’s effective leaders have been adept at strategically positioning the cause to each stakeholder’s interests. For example, making a persuasive case for politicians has meant educating them about how child marriage influences members of their own constituencies, as well as reminding them about the broad support for the cause within the local and international community.

Further, invoking emotional responses can be powerful. The CCECM has facilitated opportunities for survivors and experts to provide testimony to policymakers and legislative committees to emphasize the human and economic costs of child marriage. Representatives testified before legislative bodies in seven states, including New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Kansas, New York, and Alaska. Hearing personal stories of how survivors of child marriage have been impacted is powerful and memorable because of the emotional response from the audience. For example, one of the board members is a survivor of child marriage. She was married off at the age of 16 years, as a virgin, by her mother and stepfather, who were the founders and leaders of a religious cult in California. She was married against her will to a man who was 28 years old whom she barely knew. Not one person she encountered in this process asked her whether she was willfully agreeing to the marriage. Local elected officials have also been invited and have participated in many events organized by the CCECM, including community awareness events, the annual walk/run, and various town hall meetings to hear survivors’ stories, and advocacy town hall meetings.

Finally, obtaining some “quick wins” is important to sustain momentum within a coalition (35). Therefore, much of the work has focused on building relationships in California. In addition, the CCECM works with city officials to pass the CCEM-authored resolution and proclamations formally expressing their support to end child marriage under 18 years, no exceptions. While not laws, resolutions, and proclamations send a strong message to demonstrate a vote of confidence for legislation to end child marriage. For example, since its launch, 16 cities in Southern California and the County of Santa Clara have adopted the resolution to end child marriage under 18 without exceptions. In addition, the testimony provided by Global Hope 365 in Alaska helped to raise the minimum age at marriage from 14 to 16 years old, as well as helped to pass legislation to end child marriage in Rhode Island and New York. Once the goal has been achieved in California, the work can be expanded to other states.

Conclusions

Despite progressive perceptions of California, laws currently allow child marriage, perpetuating cycles of abuse, poverty, and inequality. Global Hope 365/the CCECM provides leadership and resources for strong advocacy, which have amplified the coalition’s impact both regionally and nationally. Its accomplishments provide an excellent case demonstrating the diverse skills behind the organization’s effective leadership. Through well-designed strategies such as advocacy, coalition building, public education, and political engagement, child marriage can be ended in California in the near future.

Discussion questions

• What are some of the reasons why child marriage persists in many countries around the world?
• What are the key legal loopholes that allow child marriage to persist in the U.S., and why have legislative efforts to close them been met with resistance?
• What arguments do opponents of child marriage bans present, and what leadership and advocacy approaches might be most effective in overcoming resistance to banning child marriage nationwide?
• What are the key leadership characteristics demonstrated in this case?

Acknowledgments

None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, Journal of Public Health and Emergency for the series “Case Studies in Global Health Leadership and Management”. The article has undergone external peer review.

Peer Review File: Available at https://jphe.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jphe-25-11/prf

Funding: None.

Conflicts of Interest: Both authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://jphe.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/jphe-25-11/coif). The series “Case Studies in Global Health Leadership and Management” was commissioned by the editorial office without any funding or sponsorship. M.W. served as an unpaid Guest Editor of the series and serves as an unpaid Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Public Health and Emergency. The authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. This study is not research with human subjects, and therefore no ethical approvals were sought.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Child Marriage Data Portal. Global trends & SDG progress. Published 2023 Jun 1. [cited 2025 January 29]. Available online: https://childmarriagedata.org/global-trends/
2. Basu M. Sherry Johnson was raped, pregnant and married by 11. Now she’s fighting to end child marriage in America. Published 2018 Jan 29. [cited 2025 January 29]. Available online: https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/29/health/ending-child-marriage-in-america/
3. UNICEF. Child marriage. 2023 [cited 2025 Jan 31]. Available online: https://data.unicef.org/topic/child-protection/child-marriage/
4. UNICEF. Fast facts: 10 facts illustrating why we must end child marriage. Published 2023 May 24. [cited 2025 January 29]. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/eca/press-releases/fast-facts-10-facts-illustrating-why-we-must-endchildmarriage
5. World Health Organization. Adolescent pregnancy. 2023 [cited 2025 Jan 31]. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-pregnancy
6. UNICEF. Gender equality: Child marriage. 2022 [cited 2025 Jan 29]. Available online: https://data.unicef.org/topic/gender/child-marriage/
7. Child Marriage Data Portal. Every 3 seconds, a girl gets married, somewhere in the world. Published 2023 Jun 1. [cited 2025 January 29]. Available online: https://childmarriagedata.org/
8. Burgess RA, Jeffery M, Odero SA, et al. Overlooked and unaddressed: A narrative review of mental health consequences of child marriages. PLOS Glob Public Health 2022;2:e0000131. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. Early marriage linked to poor mental health in young girls and adolescents. Published 2022 Nov 24. [cited 2025 January 29]. Available online: https://www.mcri.edu.au/news-stories/child-marriage-linked-to-poor-mental-health
10. UNICEF. Addressing gender-based violence in emergencies: Why GBV matters. 2020 [cited 2024 Feb 4]. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/media/84166/file/Addressing-GBV-in-Emergencies-Why-GBV-Matters.pdf
11. UNICEF. Child Marriage Data Brief. 2018 [cited 2025 Feb 1]. Available online: https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Child-Marriage-Data-Brief.pdf
12. United Nations Treaty Collection. Convention on the Rights of the Child. n.d. [cited 2025 Jan 31]. Available online: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&mtdsg_no=IV-11&src=IND
13. International Center for Research on Women. Child marriage in the United States: A synthesis of evidence on the prevalence & impact. 2021 [cited 2025 Jan 31]. Available online: https://www.icrw.org/publications/child-marriage-in-the-united-states-a-synthesis-of-evidence-on-the-prevalence-impact/
14. Human Rights Watch. No US State Meets Child Rights Standards. Published 2023 Sept 7. [cited 2024 Oct 13]. Available online: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/09/07/no-us-state-meets-child-rights-standards
15. Tsui A, Nolan D, Amico C. Child marriage in America: By the numbers. Frontline. Published 2017 Jul 6. [cited 2017 Sept 17]. Available online: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interactive/child-marriage-by-the-numbers/
16. Unchained at Last. United States’ child marriage problem: study findings. Published 2021 Apr. [cited 2022 Jan 19]. Available online: https://www.unchainedatlast.org/united-states-child-marriage-problem-study-findings-april-2021/
17. Equality Now. Only 13 of 50 US states have passed legislation banning child marriage; we still have a long road ahead. Published 2024 Jul 31. [cited 2025 Jan 29]. Available online: https://equalitynow.org/news_and_insights/only-13-of-50-us-states-have-passed-legislation-banning-child-marriage-we-still-have-a-long-road-ahead/
18. O’Connell-Domenech A. Child marriage is still legal in most of the U.S. Here’s why. The Hill. Published 2023 Oct 31. [cited 2025 Jan 29]. Available online: https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/4283941-child-marriage-is-still-legal-in-most-of-the-u-s-heres-why/
19. U.S. Department of State. Immigrant visa for spouse. n.d. [cited 2025 Feb 1]. Available online: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/immigrate/family-immigration/immigrant-visa-for-spouse.html
20. Varnado SS. Child marriage in the United States: Past, Present, and Future. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 2025;37:643-81.
21. Jetha R. Child brides: a campaign starts to ban underage marriages in California. Published 2023 Jun 23. [cited 2025 Jan 29]. Available online: https://calmatters.org/politics/2023/06/child-marriage-california/
22. California State Assembly. AB 2181: The minimum marriage age bill. 2017 [cited 2025 January 29]. Available online: https://www.assembly.ca.gov
23. Global Hope 365. n.d. [cited 2025 Feb 1]. Available online: https://www.globalhope365.org/
24. TCC Group. Coalitions tool for advocacy. Published 2021 Oct 29 [cited 2025 Feb 1]. Available online: https://www.tccgrp.com/wp-content/uploads/Coalitions-Tool-for-Advocacy-Gates-FINAL-10.29.21.pdf
25. Huxham C, Vangen S. Managing to collaborate: the theory and practice of collaborative advantage. London: Routledge; 2005.
26. Aldrich HE, Whetten DA. Organization-sets, action-sets, and networks: Making the most of simultaneous connections. In: Staw BM, Cummings LL, editors. Research in Organizational Behavior. Vol. 3. Greenwich (CT): JAI Press; 1981:385-415.
27. Ainsworth D, Chesley JA. Built to Collaborate? Organization Design and Coalition Success. Health Promot Pract 2020;21:654-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
28. Withers M, Browner CH, Aghaloo T. Promoting volunteerism in global health: lessons from a medical mission in northern Mexico. J Community Health 2013;38:374-84. [Crossref] [PubMed]
29. Kouzes JM, & Posner BZ. The Leadership Challenge: How to Make Extraordinary Things Happen in Organizations. 6th ed. Wiley, 2017.
30. Bass BM. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics 1990;18:19-31.
31. Fung K. California child marriage ban faces opposition from Planned Parenthood. Newsweek, 2023 [cited 2025 Feb 1]. Available online: https://www.newsweek.com/california-child-marriage-ban-faces-opposition-planned-parenthood-1817362
32. UNICEF. Child marriage and the law: technical note for the global programme to end child marriage. 2020 [cited 2025 Feb 1]. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/media/86311/file/Child-marriage-the-law-2020.pdf
33. UNICEF USA. Fight to end child marriage in California. [cited 2025 Feb 1]. Available online: https://www.unicefusa.org/stories/fight-end-child-marriage-california
34. Kollman K. Outside lobbying: public opinion and interest group strategies. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press; 1998.
35. Kotter JP. Leading change. Boston (MA): Harvard Business Review Press; 1996.