Missouri new law pregnant women can not finalize divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GOP must control women at all costs.

This law controls men too.

+1 These posters are not rational. Family court attempts to put the needs of the child first.

It’s extremely important to make sure both father and mother have a custody agreement and an order for child support payments. MO is trying to make sure children are cared for and that’s exactly as it should be.

People don’t just declare they are not married anymore and go their separate ways. It’s a legal process.

No woman is being denied divorce. No woman is being forced to stay married or live with an abusive stbx husband.

When covid was happening courts were shut down for months and then delayed for months. Was the government trying to keep women with abusive husbands then? What if the woman is abusive and the man needs a custody order to prevent her from alienating the baby?

How exactly does staying married several months longer address that?

Because a child support order cannot be issued until the child is born. Because a custody agreement cannot be entered into until the child is born.

The idea is to avoid the complicated and expensive divorce process being finalized before the child is born, and then a mother with a newborn baby having to go back to court and spend more time and money to get orders for child support and custody.

If a woman is 7 months pregnant and the divorce is finalized, once the baby is born, she will have to retain an attorney and petition the court to create a child support order and custody order. That will take several months at least. The father would be served and has about 30 days to provide an answer. If there are paternity issues, the baby and father must be tested and the results received by the court. Financial affidavits must be completed. Possible mediation and hearings- all those things take time. The baby is going without financial support while this is all happening.

Who wants to get divorced, have a baby, and then go back to court for months and pay another attorney to go through more legal stuff to get support and work out custody?

What you are saying is extremely patronizing. It isn't up to the state to decide that staying married until after birth is easier on the mother because of how long she has to retain an attorney and therefore to force her to stay married. Go ahead and counsel a woman about this supposed financial hit if she divorces her nightmare of a husband 7 months before a baby is born. But that should be HER choice, not the governments. Maybe YOU don't want to get divorced, have a baby, and then go back to court to get support and work out custody. And that would be YOUR choice. But g'd it, women are adults and they can decide for themselves if they want to cut the ties not matter what the financial consequences are.

You're also making a huge leap to imply that a deadbeat father is going to pay to support a newborn if he is married to the mother.

This law is about ensuring the financial well-being of the child.

Again.. much like how courts have upheld child support requirements against men who are proven to NOT be the father. (I.e. married woman cheats, gets pregnant, husband finds out later and gets divorced) the ex husband is still on the hook for child support and even if he manages to get it removed eventually he is not going to be paid back for the years of payments he made while fighting it in court.—because it’s not about the interests of the woman or the man. It’s about the best interest of the child.

Nothing you say changes whether or not the child's parents are married or divorced.

And still the patronizing.

If a mother determines she is going to be fine financially without her ex's money then it's her choice to divorce. Good god you all complain about nanny states and then you want the state to come in and force itself as the nanny to new mothers without any proof they need one.

You sound as if you think all mothers and fathers make wise decisions regarding the care and support of their children. Children need to be protected.

You are saying that the state gets to make all the decisions regarding the care and support of children, in the name of "protection". Really, that's what you want? Really? It's something a communist might say.

Do you live under a rock? Every state has child support guidelines. Every state has laws about child neglect and the care and treatment of children, including the rights of children to be financially supported by both parents.

If a couple divorces and mom says that dad gets one hour per month with the child at her home, is the father supposed to go along with that because that is what mom decides?

What if mom decides baby gets no time with dad? What if dad has the baby and refuses to allow mom any time with the child or visitation or holidays?

People posting here are being obtuse.
They are purposefully making this issue only about what a woman wants and ignoring the entire body of state laws that govern divorce, custody, and support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GOP must control women at all costs.

This law controls men too.

+1 These posters are not rational. Family court attempts to put the needs of the child first.

It’s extremely important to make sure both father and mother have a custody agreement and an order for child support payments. MO is trying to make sure children are cared for and that’s exactly as it should be.

People don’t just declare they are not married anymore and go their separate ways. It’s a legal process.

No woman is being denied divorce. No woman is being forced to stay married or live with an abusive stbx husband.

When covid was happening courts were shut down for months and then delayed for months. Was the government trying to keep women with abusive husbands then? What if the woman is abusive and the man needs a custody order to prevent her from alienating the baby?

How exactly does staying married several months longer address that?

Because a child support order cannot be issued until the child is born. Because a custody agreement cannot be entered into until the child is born.

The idea is to avoid the complicated and expensive divorce process being finalized before the child is born, and then a mother with a newborn baby having to go back to court and spend more time and money to get orders for child support and custody.

If a woman is 7 months pregnant and the divorce is finalized, once the baby is born, she will have to retain an attorney and petition the court to create a child support order and custody order. That will take several months at least. The father would be served and has about 30 days to provide an answer. If there are paternity issues, the baby and father must be tested and the results received by the court. Financial affidavits must be completed. Possible mediation and hearings- all those things take time. The baby is going without financial support while this is all happening.

Who wants to get divorced, have a baby, and then go back to court for months and pay another attorney to go through more legal stuff to get support and work out custody?

What you are saying is extremely patronizing. It isn't up to the state to decide that staying married until after birth is easier on the mother because of how long she has to retain an attorney and therefore to force her to stay married. Go ahead and counsel a woman about this supposed financial hit if she divorces her nightmare of a husband 7 months before a baby is born. But that should be HER choice, not the governments. Maybe YOU don't want to get divorced, have a baby, and then go back to court to get support and work out custody. And that would be YOUR choice. But g'd it, women are adults and they can decide for themselves if they want to cut the ties not matter what the financial consequences are.

You're also making a huge leap to imply that a deadbeat father is going to pay to support a newborn if he is married to the mother.

This law is about ensuring the financial well-being of the child.

Again.. much like how courts have upheld child support requirements against men who are proven to NOT be the father. (I.e. married woman cheats, gets pregnant, husband finds out later and gets divorced) the ex husband is still on the hook for child support and even if he manages to get it removed eventually he is not going to be paid back for the years of payments he made while fighting it in court.—because it’s not about the interests of the woman or the man. It’s about the best interest of the child.

Nothing you say changes whether or not the child's parents are married or divorced.

And still the patronizing.

If a mother determines she is going to be fine financially without her ex's money then it's her choice to divorce. Good god you all complain about nanny states and then you want the state to come in and force itself as the nanny to new mothers without any proof they need one.

You sound as if you think all mothers and fathers make wise decisions regarding the care and support of their children. Children need to be protected.

You are saying that the state gets to make all the decisions regarding the care and support of children, in the name of "protection". Really, that's what you want? Really? It's something a communist might say.

Do you live under a rock? Every state has child support guidelines. Every state has laws about child neglect and the care and treatment of children, including the rights of children to be financially supported by both parents.

If a couple divorces and mom says that dad gets one hour per month with the child at her home, is the father supposed to go along with that because that is what mom decides?

What if mom decides baby gets no time with dad? What if dad has the baby and refuses to allow mom any time with the child or visitation or holidays?

People posting here are being obtuse.
They are purposefully making this issue only about what a woman wants and ignoring the entire body of state laws that govern divorce, custody, and support.

+1 Thank you for your post!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GOP must control women at all costs.

This law controls men too.

+1 These posters are not rational. Family court attempts to put the needs of the child first.

It’s extremely important to make sure both father and mother have a custody agreement and an order for child support payments. MO is trying to make sure children are cared for and that’s exactly as it should be.

People don’t just declare they are not married anymore and go their separate ways. It’s a legal process.

No woman is being denied divorce. No woman is being forced to stay married or live with an abusive stbx husband.

When covid was happening courts were shut down for months and then delayed for months. Was the government trying to keep women with abusive husbands then? What if the woman is abusive and the man needs a custody order to prevent her from alienating the baby?

How exactly does staying married several months longer address that?

Because a child support order cannot be issued until the child is born. Because a custody agreement cannot be entered into until the child is born.

The idea is to avoid the complicated and expensive divorce process being finalized before the child is born, and then a mother with a newborn baby having to go back to court and spend more time and money to get orders for child support and custody.

If a woman is 7 months pregnant and the divorce is finalized, once the baby is born, she will have to retain an attorney and petition the court to create a child support order and custody order. That will take several months at least. The father would be served and has about 30 days to provide an answer. If there are paternity issues, the baby and father must be tested and the results received by the court. Financial affidavits must be completed. Possible mediation and hearings- all those things take time. The baby is going without financial support while this is all happening.

Who wants to get divorced, have a baby, and then go back to court for months and pay another attorney to go through more legal stuff to get support and work out custody?

What you are saying is extremely patronizing. It isn't up to the state to decide that staying married until after birth is easier on the mother because of how long she has to retain an attorney and therefore to force her to stay married. Go ahead and counsel a woman about this supposed financial hit if she divorces her nightmare of a husband 7 months before a baby is born. But that should be HER choice, not the governments. Maybe YOU don't want to get divorced, have a baby, and then go back to court to get support and work out custody. And that would be YOUR choice. But g'd it, women are adults and they can decide for themselves if they want to cut the ties not matter what the financial consequences are.

You're also making a huge leap to imply that a deadbeat father is going to pay to support a newborn if he is married to the mother.

This law is about ensuring the financial well-being of the child.

Again.. much like how courts have upheld child support requirements against men who are proven to NOT be the father. (I.e. married woman cheats, gets pregnant, husband finds out later and gets divorced) the ex husband is still on the hook for child support and even if he manages to get it removed eventually he is not going to be paid back for the years of payments he made while fighting it in court.—because it’s not about the interests of the woman or the man. It’s about the best interest of the child.

Nothing you say changes whether or not the child's parents are married or divorced.

And still the patronizing.

If a mother determines she is going to be fine financially without her ex's money then it's her choice to divorce. Good god you all complain about nanny states and then you want the state to come in and force itself as the nanny to new mothers without any proof they need one.

You sound as if you think all mothers and fathers make wise decisions regarding the care and support of their children. Children need to be protected.

You are saying that the state gets to make all the decisions regarding the care and support of children, in the name of "protection". Really, that's what you want? Really? It's something a communist might say.

Do you live under a rock? Every state has child support guidelines. Every state has laws about child neglect and the care and treatment of children, including the rights of children to be financially supported by both parents.

If a couple divorces and mom says that dad gets one hour per month with the child at her home, is the father supposed to go along with that because that is what mom decides?

What if mom decides baby gets no time with dad? What if dad has the baby and refuses to allow mom any time with the child or visitation or holidays?

People posting here are being obtuse.
They are purposefully making this issue only about what a woman wants and ignoring the entire body of state laws that govern divorce, custody, and support.

FFS the marital status of the mother should have not bearing on any of what you are saying. You are the one being obtuse.

Are you going to force unmarried pregnant women to marry so that the state can make support decisions and a custody arrangement and then allow her to divorce? If an unmarried woman is able to navigate all those things then a woman should be able to finalize her divorce before giving birth. No one here has proven that a prenatal divorce is going to prevent custody arrangement and child support from happening. It does not.

And why won’t you answer the question of whether Missouri is going to force women seeking divorce to do a pregnancy test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And what if a woman is pregnant with some other man's child, not her husband's, and she wants to marry the father of the child? What if she's been estranged from her husband for years? Why should she not be able to divorce and marry the father of her kid?

She can, after she gives birth.

She can also do it before giving birth. There is no valid reason to hold her hostage. If the ex says it’s his child despite having been estranged for years he can make a request for a paternity test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby deserves two parents, even if they aren’t going to stay married.

The woman is only 1/3 of the equation. The needs of the newborn child are the most important part of this decision.

Where did you see that “they” (who is they?) are working on no bank account should be owned by a woman? Link, source?

No and no

So husband is beating the crap out of his pregnant wife and she should stay with him bec in these states women have no rights ? You are sick .

They are republicans wake up they wrote it down. CPAC

This entire thread is false information. Deliberate misinformation. Misleading and inflammatory. No person, man or woman, is forced to stay in a home where they are being abused.

“A pregnant person can still apply for divorce under Missouri law, but a judge can, and usually does, refuse to issue that divorce until they’ve given birth or until they are no longer pregnant.“

So a pregnant woman can file for divorce. She can have an attorney file paperwork to divorce and ask a judge to make an order that gives her temporary support (money for bills, keep a vehicle owned by the couple for her use, give her temporary use of the couple’s home so the husband cannot stay in the home with her, especially if he is being abusive.) The woman can file for divorce based on the grounds of abuse. MO isn’t saying a pregnant woman cannot begin the process of divorce, she absolutely can.


You are not required to remain with your spouse.

“You do not need to remain with your husband during this time if your divorce cannot be finalized until after the birth of your child. The most crucial thing to do if you don’t feel safe in your marriage and are concerned that your spouse might hurt you is to take precautions for your own safety. If you have been assaulted, look for a new place to live and get in touch with the police and a lawyer who can assist you in obtaining a protection order.“

https://www.sheakohllaw.com/divorce-while-pre...-missouri-explained/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Three other states have similar laws: Texas, Arizona, and Arkansas. While a couple can still file for divorce in Missouri, the court must wait until after a woman gives birth in order to finalize child custody and child support.

Wonderful for domestic violence no exceptions

And they are now working on no bank accounts should be owned by women

Vote red as a female brain dead

Actually that’s not true. Even the very left blogs don’t say things true
https://femmefrugality.com/myth-busting-womens-banking/

As for pregnancy
https://www.wfla.com/news/national/pregnant-w...souri-heres-why/amp/

Whine it can change it’s not some affront to women’s rights. The man is also stuck in the marriage too so if he wants to finalize the divorce he also can’t. So it affects both parties. And even states like VA you can’t finalize until a year of separation- which can only be expedited under certain circumstances and rarely is .

This is just more hyperbole and FUD by the p*say hat wearing crowd

But getting married is a bad idea for guys anyways. There isn’t a single reason why men should committed and get married. And the fact that people want to finalize divorces while there is custody issues that need to be solved as well as deciding the paternity if the child shows this is yet another reason for men to avoid marriage.

[Anonymous]

It’s funny how women make this and issue about them . Imagine being the man and your wife cheats and she’s pregnant. You have no way of knowing if the child is yours and you’re left with a cheating wife and a kid that might not be yours.

So if you’re in Missouri don’t get married, there isn’t a one good reason to do so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GOP must control women at all costs.

This law controls men too.

+1 These posters are not rational. Family court attempts to put the needs of the child first.

It’s extremely important to make sure both father and mother have a custody agreement and an order for child support payments. MO is trying to make sure children are cared for and that’s exactly as it should be.

People don’t just declare they are not married anymore and go their separate ways. It’s a legal process.

No woman is being denied divorce. No woman is being forced to stay married or live with an abusive stbx husband.

When covid was happening courts were shut down for months and then delayed for months. Was the government trying to keep women with abusive husbands then? What if the woman is abusive and the man needs a custody order to prevent her from alienating the baby?

How exactly does staying married several months longer address that?

Because a child support order cannot be issued until the child is born. Because a custody agreement cannot be entered into until the child is born.

The idea is to avoid the complicated and expensive divorce process being finalized before the child is born, and then a mother with a newborn baby having to go back to court and spend more time and money to get orders for child support and custody.

If a woman is 7 months pregnant and the divorce is finalized, once the baby is born, she will have to retain an attorney and petition the court to create a child support order and custody order. That will take several months at least. The father would be served and has about 30 days to provide an answer. If there are paternity issues, the baby and father must be tested and the results received by the court. Financial affidavits must be completed. Possible mediation and hearings- all those things take time. The baby is going without financial support while this is all happening.

Who wants to get divorced, have a baby, and then go back to court for months and pay another attorney to go through more legal stuff to get support and work out custody?

What you are saying is extremely patronizing. It isn't up to the state to decide that staying married until after birth is easier on the mother because of how long she has to retain an attorney and therefore to force her to stay married. Go ahead and counsel a woman about this supposed financial hit if she divorces her nightmare of a husband 7 months before a baby is born. But that should be HER choice, not the governments. Maybe YOU don't want to get divorced, have a baby, and then go back to court to get support and work out custody. And that would be YOUR choice. But g'd it, women are adults and they can decide for themselves if they want to cut the ties not matter what the financial consequences are.

You're also making a huge leap to imply that a deadbeat father is going to pay to support a newborn if he is married to the mother.

This law is about ensuring the financial well-being of the child.

Again.. much like how courts have upheld child support requirements against men who are proven to NOT be the father. (I.e. married woman cheats, gets pregnant, husband finds out later and gets divorced) the ex husband is still on the hook for child support and even if he manages to get it removed eventually he is not going to be paid back for the years of payments he made while fighting it in court.—because it’s not about the interests of the woman or the man. It’s about the best interest of the child.

Nothing you say changes whether or not the child's parents are married or divorced.

And still the patronizing.

If a mother determines she is going to be fine financially without her ex's money then it's her choice to divorce. Good god you all complain about nanny states and then you want the state to come in and force itself as the nanny to new mothers without any proof they need one.

You sound as if you think all mothers and fathers make wise decisions regarding the care and support of their children. Children need to be protected.

You are saying that the state gets to make all the decisions regarding the care and support of children, in the name of "protection". Really, that's what you want? Really? It's something a communist might say.

Do you live under a rock? Every state has child support guidelines. Every state has laws about child neglect and the care and treatment of children, including the rights of children to be financially supported by both parents.

If a couple divorces and mom says that dad gets one hour per month with the child at her home, is the father supposed to go along with that because that is what mom decides?

What if mom decides baby gets no time with dad? What if dad has the baby and refuses to allow mom any time with the child or visitation or holidays?

People posting here are being obtuse.
They are purposefully making this issue only about what a woman wants and ignoring the entire body of state laws that govern divorce, custody, and support.

FFS the marital status of the mother should have not bearing on any of what you are saying. You are the one being obtuse.

Are you going to force unmarried pregnant women to marry so that the state can make support decisions and a custody arrangement and then allow her to divorce? If an unmarried woman is able to navigate all those things then a woman should be able to finalize her divorce before giving birth. No one here has proven that a prenatal divorce is going to prevent custody arrangement and child support from happening. It does not.

And why won’t you answer the question of whether Missouri is going to force women seeking divorce to do a pregnancy test.

The marital status of both of the parents absolutely has bearing on this issue. Why do you not understand that marriage is about 2 people?

Nowhere does MO or any state have laws that force pregnant women to get married. No one here controls any laws. MO and every state has laws (with good reason) to put the needs of a child first and address child support and custody.

Once a baby enters the picture, it’s very important to have both child support and custody orders established as soon as possible for the well being of the child and to establish rules about how the mother and father will co-parent. (Dcum can pretend a woman will be in charge of these issues but in reality she’s not.)

A divorcing couple (in every state, even if the couple is in their 50s when pregnancy is probably not very common) MUST provide a written statement to the court in their initial petition or answer to the court for divorce as the woman/wife, she is not pregnant to the best if her knowledge, and the man/husband, to the best of his knowledge, his stbx wife is not pregnant with his child or pregnant at all. That is mandatory.

That you don’t know this but ARE SO OUTRAGED THAT A WOMAN MIGHT BE ASKED ABOUT HER BODY IN ANY WAY betrays your total ignorance and you should be ignored.

Yes, a divorcing couple must declare truthfully, in divorce proceedings, the pregnancy (or non-pregnancy) status of the wife. A child complicates everything. Grow up and stop have childish tantrums about the legal process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Three other states have similar laws: Texas, Arizona, and Arkansas. While a couple can still file for divorce in Missouri, the court must wait until after a woman gives birth in order to finalize child custody and child support.

Wonderful for domestic violence no exceptions

And they are now working on no bank accounts should be owned by women

Vote red as a female brain dead

The law you are claiming is a new law has been a law since 1973.

Op, why are you claiming this is a new law?

Maybe to spread disinformation? Are you russian?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Three other states have similar laws: Texas, Arizona, and Arkansas. While a couple can still file for divorce in Missouri, the court must wait until after a woman gives birth in order to finalize child custody and child support.

Wonderful for domestic violence no exceptions

And they are now working on no bank accounts should be owned by women

Vote red as a female brain dead

The law you are claiming is a new law has been a law since 1973.

Op, why are you claiming this is a new law?

Maybe to spread disinformation? Are you russian?

It’s obvious they’re a DNC paid operative. There’s a lot of them on this site and they rely on low information others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GOP must control women at all costs.

This law controls men too.

+1 These posters are not rational. Family court attempts to put the needs of the child first.

It’s extremely important to make sure both father and mother have a custody agreement and an order for child support payments. MO is trying to make sure children are cared for and that’s exactly as it should be.

People don’t just declare they are not married anymore and go their separate ways. It’s a legal process.

No woman is being denied divorce. No woman is being forced to stay married or live with an abusive stbx husband.

When covid was happening courts were shut down for months and then delayed for months. Was the government trying to keep women with abusive husbands then? What if the woman is abusive and the man needs a custody order to prevent her from alienating the baby?

How exactly does staying married several months longer address that?

Because a child support order cannot be issued until the child is born. Because a custody agreement cannot be entered into until the child is born.

The idea is to avoid the complicated and expensive divorce process being finalized before the child is born, and then a mother with a newborn baby having to go back to court and spend more time and money to get orders for child support and custody.

If a woman is 7 months pregnant and the divorce is finalized, once the baby is born, she will have to retain an attorney and petition the court to create a child support order and custody order. That will take several months at least. The father would be served and has about 30 days to provide an answer. If there are paternity issues, the baby and father must be tested and the results received by the court. Financial affidavits must be completed. Possible mediation and hearings- all those things take time. The baby is going without financial support while this is all happening.

Who wants to get divorced, have a baby, and then go back to court for months and pay another attorney to go through more legal stuff to get support and work out custody?

What you are saying is extremely patronizing. It isn't up to the state to decide that staying married until after birth is easier on the mother because of how long she has to retain an attorney and therefore to force her to stay married. Go ahead and counsel a woman about this supposed financial hit if she divorces her nightmare of a husband 7 months before a baby is born. But that should be HER choice, not the governments. Maybe YOU don't want to get divorced, have a baby, and then go back to court to get support and work out custody. And that would be YOUR choice. But g'd it, women are adults and they can decide for themselves if they want to cut the ties not matter what the financial consequences are.

You're also making a huge leap to imply that a deadbeat father is going to pay to support a newborn if he is married to the mother.

This law is about ensuring the financial well-being of the child.

Again.. much like how courts have upheld child support requirements against men who are proven to NOT be the father. (I.e. married woman cheats, gets pregnant, husband finds out later and gets divorced) the ex husband is still on the hook for child support and even if he manages to get it removed eventually he is not going to be paid back for the years of payments he made while fighting it in court.—because it’s not about the interests of the woman or the man. It’s about the best interest of the child.

Nothing you say changes whether or not the child's parents are married or divorced.

And still the patronizing.

If a mother determines she is going to be fine financially without her ex's money then it's her choice to divorce. Good god you all complain about nanny states and then you want the state to come in and force itself as the nanny to new mothers without any proof they need one.

You sound as if you think all mothers and fathers make wise decisions regarding the care and support of their children. Children need to be protected.

You are saying that the state gets to make all the decisions regarding the care and support of children, in the name of "protection". Really, that's what you want? Really? It's something a communist might say.

Do you live under a rock? Every state has child support guidelines. Every state has laws about child neglect and the care and treatment of children, including the rights of children to be financially supported by both parents.

If a couple divorces and mom says that dad gets one hour per month with the child at her home, is the father supposed to go along with that because that is what mom decides?

What if mom decides baby gets no time with dad? What if dad has the baby and refuses to allow mom any time with the child or visitation or holidays?

People posting here are being obtuse.
They are purposefully making this issue only about what a woman wants and ignoring the entire body of state laws that govern divorce, custody, and support.

FFS the marital status of the mother should have not bearing on any of what you are saying. You are the one being obtuse.

Are you going to force unmarried pregnant women to marry so that the state can make support decisions and a custody arrangement and then allow her to divorce? If an unmarried woman is able to navigate all those things then a woman should be able to finalize her divorce before giving birth. No one here has proven that a prenatal divorce is going to prevent custody arrangement and child support from happening. It does not.

And why won’t you answer the question of whether Missouri is going to force women seeking divorce to do a pregnancy test.

The marital status of both of the parents absolutely has bearing on this issue. Why do you not understand that marriage is about 2 people?

Nowhere does MO or any state have laws that force pregnant women to get married. No one here controls any laws. MO and every state has laws (with good reason) to put the needs of a child first and address child support and custody.

Once a baby enters the picture, it’s very important to have both child support and custody orders established as soon as possible for the well being of the child and to establish rules about how the mother and father will co-parent. (Dcum can pretend a woman will be in charge of these issues but in reality she’s not.)

A divorcing couple (in every state, even if the couple is in their 50s when pregnancy is probably not very common) MUST provide a written statement to the court in their initial petition or answer to the court for divorce as the woman/wife, she is not pregnant to the best if her knowledge, and the man/husband, to the best of his knowledge, his stbx wife is not pregnant with his child or pregnant at all. That is mandatory.

That you don’t know this but ARE SO OUTRAGED THAT A WOMAN MIGHT BE ASKED ABOUT HER BODY IN ANY WAY betrays your total ignorance and you should be ignored.

Yes, a divorcing couple must declare truthfully, in divorce proceedings, the pregnancy (or non-pregnancy) status of the wife. A child complicates everything. Grow up and stop have childish tantrums about the legal process.

You still have not shown one reason that a divorce finalized before birth will prevent support and custody arrangements from happening. You haven’t proven that unmarried couples aren’t able to go to court for child support and child arrangements verdicts.

If other states can navigate a divorce pre birth there’s no reason Missouri and the other three can’t do it unless they are just incompetent.

[Anonymous]

Can someone please explain how a divorced couple are unable to negotiate child support and custody arrangements in these states that don’t allow finalizing a divorce until after birth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain how a divorced couple are unable to negotiate child support and custody arrangements in these states that don’t allow finalizing a divorce until after birth?

Well for one most states want you to wait before you finalize at least a year.

But more to the point it’s good for the father to be there while legally married and able to deal with paternity tests. If a woman is getting a divorce and she’s pregnant chances are she either cheated and the Kid isn’t his ir once divorced he won’t have the legal recourse to get equal custody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain how a divorced couple are unable to negotiate child support and custody arrangements in these states that don’t allow finalizing a divorce until after birth?

This biggest issue is the presumption that a child born to a married couple is the husband's baby. The rule exists to protect the woman by making it nearly impossible for the husband to disclaim the child. If the wife was cheating, this law keeps the husband on the hook for child support. That's the practical effect of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please explain how a divorced couple are unable to negotiate child support and custody arrangements in these states that don’t allow finalizing a divorce until after birth?

This biggest issue is the presumption that a child born to a married couple is the husband's baby. The rule exists to protect the woman by making it nearly impossible for the husband to disclaim the child. If the wife was cheating, this law keeps the husband on the hook for child support. That's the practical effect of the law.

As long as he doesn’t sign the birth certificate- but this just goes more to the point of why marriage is just a bad idea for men period.

Men should not get married until laws change and studies show men aren’t getting married