An Insane Missouri Law Prevents Pregnant Women From Getting Divorced—Even If They’re Victims of Domestic Violence
An Insane Missouri Law Prevents Pregnant Women From Getting Divorced—Even If They’re Victims of Domestic Violence
State representative Ashley Aune is trying to fight it, but doesn’t have high hopes.
State representative Ashley Aune is trying to fight it, but doesn’t have high hopes.
Something you might have picked up on over the last several weeks/years/centuries is that there are a disturbing number of people in power who will go to great lengths to control women in America. Not convinced? Thinking of citing the fact that in some countries, women are stoned to death (as though that makes what happens here okay)? Then we’d like to make you aware of a law in Missouri that says pregnant women cannot get a divorce finalized if they’re pregnant—even if said pregnant people are victims of domestic violence.
Honestly, the rules and laws on divorce are so wild across the country. I was married in California but my husband left after 6 months. I hadn't see him in 9 or 10 years, had no idea where he was.
Because I was in the state of Kentucky when I filed, I had to go to a church run "divorce education class" on how to save my marriage and complete a little workbook.
Completely insane class, I stayed in the back and tried to stay silent, but the teacher forced me to participate and asked some leading question about how I could communicate better with my spouse to prevent a divorce or some shit.
Told her I had no idea where my spouse was, that he had left after 6 months and that I had to hire a private investigator (and a police officer!) to serve my divorce papers. The whole thing was nuts.
Okay, but have you tried praying to Jesus for salvation? Like, really tried? I don't think you tried hard enough, sweetie. I'm going to fail you and make you repeat the class.
I'm sorry you had to go through that.
OBVIOUSLY he's just playing hard to get because you don't spend enough time cooking and bathing him. It's actually your fault and if you accept sky Daddy hard enough he'll come running back.
Horrific
Especially if they're victims of domestic violence
Male or female, what other purpose could a law like this serve except to give abusers a route to legally trap their victim?
To stop fathers abandoning the family when the wife gets pregnant and using a loophole to get out of child support.
Last time this came up on Lemmy there was a comment saying that's where the law came from originally.
It doesn't stop you separating during pregnancy, just to complete the divorce you have to wait till after the birth.
For those who don't have time to read the title or the article:
Missouri insane
Its a two way street. Men cant get divorced either.
It's there on the books due to child custody issues. A wife who's married and gives birth has the husband put in as the father. If unmarried, a woman can put in "unknown" as the father and take away all of his rights to see his kid or have anything to do with his child until a nice lengthy and costly amount of court, which gets even more difficult if the mom leaves the state.
So short version is that the law prevents one parent from trying to prevent the other parent from having any form of child custody.
So why not change the law to, when getting a divorce during pregnancy you have to sign a paper promising he is the official dad and let them divorce anyway?
I mean I get that it's not up to the victim to decide if the guy is capable of being a father, there's other systems in place for that. But you just can't lock someone up with a partner they don't want in any circumstance.
This is insane! I'm so confused about why a pregnancy and a divorce have to be mutually exclusive. What was this intended to prevent? Other than the obvious reason of controlling women.
I guess you can make an argument that a pregnant woman isn't of sound mind, but I think it's more about ensuring parenthood is established outside the divorce process.
Can't read the entire article. Is this something new?
Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas. Lawmakers claim it's to prevent issues with things like child support, visitation, etc, before paternity can be established. This article does a pretty good job summarizing the situations:
Paternity tests can be done during pregnancy...
I'm a paralegal, and Wisconsin is the same. We had a headache in one case a couple years ago where nobody knew the other party was pregnant, not even her attorney, until the final hearing and she was asked the generic question about pregnancy before finalizing. We then had to do a partial final judgment and schedule another final hearing a couple of months after her expected due date to fully finalize it.
Most contested divorces take more than nine months anyways, and you don't need a divorce to separate and get into a safe space. Typically separation happens before the legal process starts, and even if you wanted to get remarried there is an intermediate 'bifurcation' step which can end the marriage legally before the divorce is finalized.
This is just a legal convenience for the court, but who doesn't love a little rage bait?
And the USA is supposed to be a first world country?
Oh no it's not, it hasn't been that for a while. Some states may look like it, but some are straight up third world.
First world country only if you're in a certain percentage of income.
By original definition, USA is a first world country because they supported the USA and other Western countries in the cold war: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/first-world.asp
Hmmm. State is trying to live up to it's name, and make people live in misery.
This is common. In Tennessee, a judge won't divorce you if pregnant because it would effectively bastardize the child. By statute, there is a presumption that husband is dad if wife is impregnated during marriage. You can't divorce without a parenting plan. So you have to wait until birth to rebut the parentage presumption. I had a client try to get around it by requesting a test of the amniotic fluid, but the judge wouldn't allow it because of the potential harm to the child.
It's probably more about preventing the state from becoming liable to help the child than anything about bastards.
"Bastardize" is a term of art, essentially meaning having no legal father at birth. The whole reason the state cares about preventing bastards is because they typically require more state services than non-bastardized children.
Possibly related note: Jesus's rules on divorce do not permit a woman to leave an abusive marriage.
Depending on which gospel you're reading a man may either leave an adulterous wife(Matthew)or not under any circumstances(mark, luke).
It's a bit annoying that they wrote it up so literally decades after he was dead.
Dude was also allegedly regularly referring to death and the afterlife using marriage metaphors of bridegrooms and bridal suites.
But yeah, the idea divorce is impossible had to do with actual marriage and not the whole 'dying' part.
(Though I suppose the sect that believed a dead body came back as opposed to the sects that denied physical resurrection would have preferred interpreting it as referring to actual marriage and not death...)
It’s a bit annoying that they wrote it up so literally decades after he was dead.
It took a while to create a myth from scratch. Go read the early Batman and Superman comics, you can see how they struggled. In any case the restricted divorce rules probably came from Paul and the author of Mark's pathetic attempts to read the OT Song of songs and Zeke 29.
Possibly related note: Jesus's rules on divorce do not permit a woman to leave an abusive marriage.
Citation needed por favor.
Horrifying. Fucking barbaric shit you see in other countries where women have no rights.
So glad I signed up to vote this year. Missouri I'm disappointed in you so much right now
As an AFAB Missourian I'm fucking terrified.
Missouri is a toilet bowl!
A few years ago, right before the pandemic in fact, I came very close to moving to Missouri.
At the time, turning the job down because of the incredibly low final offer was one of the hardest things I'd ever done.
Ended up finding a much better job and moving back to my home town in a decidedly blue state, really dodged a bullet on that one.
Permanently Deleted
marriage is a complicated mess of a contract that married people don't usually understand. it's not consistent across state lines and the number of absurd legal situations it can lead to is crazy
I swear, marriage would be easier dealt with if both parties opted to incorporate a business, and put their relevant assets in the name of the corporation. Then at least separation would be pretty clean cut and dry. The Irony is - this is basically what marriage is.
No, marriage has a few more important rights, ranging from being able to make certain important medical decisions for the other (e.g. life support related) to being able to refuse to testify against each other.
Someone explain to me again how wanting to crush radical fascist talk radio saturation is bad because "free speech".
If all other perspectives are suppressed for any reason including profitability you can STFU
Slavery
World looking at the United States: shaking head
Once again, everyone going off after reading the headline.
The law merely states that the divorce cannot be finalized if the woman is pregnant. And that makes sense. Questions of paternity, child support, visitation, etc., must be part of the final divorce decree.
Would you rather the woman get a final judgement that lacks answers to the questions above? And again, nothing here traps the woman. She can leave. She can file for divorce. Proceedings can begin.
And yet in most states, a pregnant woman can get a divorce finalized somehow.
must be part of the final divorce decree.
Why?
Wtf is wrong with lemmy users I swear.
That's crazy and so unfair that men can't get divorced if their wives are pregnant, even if they're being domestically abused.
Oh wait. It isn't allowed to be seen or hated for looking at it from that direction. This is more gendered stereotyping, inferring that only women are being abused and want out of a bad relationship.
The main basis behind this law is that right now if you're married and give birth, the husband's name gets put in/assumed as the father. A woman who isn't married can put down unknown as a father and make it more difficult for the father to have rights for their child. Getting a divorce while pregnant is only really needed as a custody grab for a woman to try and keep her child away from the other parent by not putting them on the birth certificate.
There's not much else you can't do when married that you can do when you're single. You can still move out, you can still date, you can't be arrested and brought back to your spouse, you can still open bank accounts. All it really benefits is being used as a tool against sharing custody if a child.
This person is living on mars.
Or he’s just fucking stupid.
That’s crazy and so unfair that men can’t get divorced if their wives are pregnant, even if they’re being domestically abused.
This is a bizarre false equivalency. Yes, men get abused in relationships, no the numbers aren't equal, and no-where in this article does it say men can't suffer from this insane law.
This is something that was brought to me by folks in my community who shared that it was a huge problem,” Aune said. In a committee meeting, she shared the story of a woman affected by the existing law, saying: “Not only was she being physically and emotionally abused, but there was reproduction coercion used. When she found out she was pregnant and asked a lawyer if she could get a divorce, she was essentially told no. It was so demoralizing for her to hear that. She felt she had no options.”
She brought this forward specifically because a woman came to her in this situation. Men can go and protest this as well, but the story is about the woman who approached Aune. This bullshit where any time a woman complains about something unfair means some asshat has to jump in going "men too men too men too!"
NOBODY HAS SAID MEN DON'T SUFFER THIS SHIT. You're making a strawman.
That's insulting to Martians!
Consider if you will that pregnancy is a state of extreme vulnerability. The chances of being killed by a parter are astronomically higher for pregnant people... With the case of a lot of insurance, banking policies and economic infrastructure is designed to enable spouses to be treated as a single person any property you acquire is by default mutually owned meaning there's all manner of control which can be exerted by a spouse. You cannot file taxes separately and kinship treats your spouse as both your automatic inheritor and a legal authority with power of attorney in the event of you are incapacitated so you have someone that you cannot fully escape from because of legal ties. If you fear for your life from someone any contact is too much.
Considering too that it relatively common for men who were not previously abusive to suddenly change their personality, dropping their masks abruptly once someone is essentially trapped into having their baby then not giving someone the ability to extracate themselves from this situation is creating incentive to put on these deceptions. In the matter of childbearing the risk is borne only by one partner. It would stand to reason that if a non bearing partner causes an undue increase in the risks during the most vulnerable stages of pregnancy that they default on both their responsibilities and privileges as a parent.
Critically in a very short term divorce proceeding you do have to prove to a court cruelty or adultery which means obtaining reasonable proof these things exist. If your partner is proven cruel or a cheater then really are they worth defending their custody so vehemently? Most no fault divorce state requirements require a mutual separation period well beyond the gestation period of pregnancy (one year is the most common) . Even if you timed a separation so that you got pregnant right at the beginning of starting the clock that baby would be three months old before you would be eligible to divorce.