Missouri law bars divorce during pregnancy – even in cases of violence
Missouri law bars divorce during pregnancy – even in cases of violence
The statute, which can lead to reproductive coercion in a state that has banned abortion, has recently gained nationwide attention
The statute, which can lead to reproductive coercion in a state that has banned abortion, has recently gained nationwide attention
At six months pregnant, H decided enough was enough. She had endured years of abuse from her husband and had recently discovered he was also physically violent towards her child. She contacted an attorney to help her get a divorce.
But she was stopped short. Her lawyer told her that she could not finalize a divorce in Missouri because she was pregnant. “I just absolutely felt defeated,” she said. H returned to the house she shared with her abuser, sleeping in her child’s room on the floor and continuing to face violence. On the night before she gave birth, she slept in the most secure room in the house: on the tile floor in the basement, with the family’s dogs.
Under a Missouri statute that has recently gained nationwide attention, every petitioner for divorce is required to disclose their pregnancy status. In practice, experts say, those who are pregnant are barred from legally dissolving their marriage. “The application [of the law] is an outright ban,” said Danielle Drake, attorney at Parks & Drake. When Drake learned her then husband was having an affair, her own divorce stalled because she was pregnant. Two other states have similar laws: Texas and Arkansas.
You're viewing a single thread.
Y'all are so reactionary it's pitiful. Arizona, Arkansas, California and Texas also have this law. In Michigan the judge makes the call.
Nothing is stopping a woman from leaving or beginning divorce proceedings. All these laws mean is that they cannot finalize a divorce while pregnant. And that makes sense because:
- Especially when a couple is divorcing, they may have other intimate partners. A pregnancy at this time might have unclear paternity, and the court may require a DNA test of the baby after it's born.
- The court may not believe it's urgent to order a newborn visitation schedule before there's a baby to visit. In the meantime, one parent could move a long distance, and then they'd need a different visitation arrangement.
- If the baby is born to a newly divorced parent, the parent is likelier to qualify for public assistance. The state wants the baby to be born to married parents to make it easier to hold them both financially accountable for the child.
- The court wants to avoid ordering child support before there's a child to support. If parents lose or gain jobs, the support amount will have to be recalculated.
- The court needs to know if the baby is born with an illness, disability or other condition that requires extra parental attention or generates high doctor bills.
- You could be surprised with twins.
- If there's a concern about your fitness to parent, the judge may appoint a custody evaluator or social worker to observe you with the child.
- A home visit by a social worker can verify that the child exists and lives in the state.
- Generally, courts don't have authority to make orders affecting unborn babies. Once a baby is born, it's legally a person and a state resident.
https://www.custodyxchange.com/topics/divorce/divorce-while-pregnant.php
None of those reasons are valid. Not one.
^ There go one now, reacting to the headline, refusing information that goes against the zeitgeist around here. So your argument amounts to, "Nuh UH!"?
And what's your argument against the law? It does nothing to stop a woman from getting away from her husband. The only thing it stops is finalizing the divorce before the above questions are answered.
If you were the woman, wouldn't you rather wait to sign on the dotted line so there's no risk of relitigating anything listed above? As a single mother, you're likely in a bad spot. Want to go back to court, over and over? Or even once? It's painful. I know.
Pick one argument you made that you think is the best, and I'll show you why it's erroneous.
And no, I wouldn't want to wait. I've been the woman in this scenario. I was three months pregnant when my husband physically attacked me. You need a swift legal end. It's easy to write a divorce agreement that deals with situations that don't yet exist. Most every single one deals with at least a few. (When the house sells, at retirement age, when taxes are due, etc.) Why not when a baby is born?
Until that line is signed by a judge, men like my husband continue to drag you back because they think they own you under the law.
Your arguments sound great to anyone who hasn't actually been in that situation. But every one of them can be addressed without forcing a woman to stay married to her abuser.