Missouri new law pregnant women can not finalize divorce

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every baby deserves to be legally legitimate and have a father on the birth certificate.

They don’t have to be married for the father to be on the birth certificate.

But the child is illegitimate. Not fair to do that to a child.

Are you from the 50s?

Illegitimate? What does that even mean in modern society? There are no lines of inheritance at stake.

Do you really qualify the value of the life of a child as legitimate or illegitimate based on the circumstances they had no control over?

I never said I used the term or anything you stated above. There is a legitimation process in states for a reason. Although the public now tends to use terms like "love child," etc, you can see that even as recently as 2023, Newsweek used the term in this article.
https://www.newsweek.com/jack-nicholson-daughter-tessa-gourin-nepo-babies-1777724

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 they are definitely trying to make women feel under attack but this law is to protect the rights of all 3 people (man, woman, child) and has been existed for decades.

Plus it makes women look dumb, like they aren’t capable of understanding what they read and what the laws are about divorce.

[Anonymous]

“They gonna take muh bank account!”= how democrats appeal to low information women voters.

“There is a NEW LAW in Missouri to make women stay married to their rapists!”= how democrats appeal to low information women, by lying about a law that has been in place since 1973.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“They gonna take muh bank account!”= how democrats appeal to low information women voters.

“There is a NEW LAW in Missouri to make women stay married to their rapists!”= how democrats appeal to low information women, by lying about a law that has been in place since 1973.

Sounds like it's time to update an outdated law that was passed at a time when married women couldn't get a bank account on their own without their husband's signature in many states.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If they’ve been estranged for years while married, they can wait nine more months. Remember he can’t divorce her either.

You can’t given any valid reasons why she has to wait. Ridiculous

He has to wait too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“They gonna take muh bank account!”= how democrats appeal to low information women voters.

“There is a NEW LAW in Missouri to make women stay married to their rapists!”= how democrats appeal to low information women, by lying about a law that has been in place since 1973.

Sounds like it's time to update an outdated law that was passed at a time when married women couldn't get a bank account on their own without their husband's signature in many states.

Yeah it would be just awful to make parents put their children first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 they are definitely trying to make women feel under attack but this law is to protect the rights of all 3 people (man, woman, child) and has been existed for decades.

Plus it makes women look dumb, like they aren’t capable of understanding what they read and what the laws are about divorce.

Protecting you by not letting you divorce the person you want to divorce. No thanks.

Women are plenty capable of understanding what this means.

[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.

Have never known anyone to get divorced? Because that is exactly how it works. When I divorced my DXH in Maryland we absolutely had to show the court how our child would be cared for and supported.

You can't be this stupid.

[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.

Have never known anyone to get divorced? Because that is exactly how it works. When I divorced my DXH in Maryland we absolutely had to show the court how our child would be cared for and supported.

You can't be this stupid.

+1 I am guessing more than a few of these posters are young, naive, unmarried and sexually active. They have no idea about laws, marriage, divorce, and children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“They gonna take muh bank account!”= how democrats appeal to low information women voters.

“There is a NEW LAW in Missouri to make women stay married to their rapists!”= how democrats appeal to low information women, by lying about a law that has been in place since 1973.

Sounds like it's time to update an outdated law that was passed at a time when married women couldn't get a bank account on their own without their husband's signature in many states.

Yeah it would be just awful to make parents put their children first.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

What’s preventing him from taking a paternity test if they divorce?

How does he not have legal recourse to get shared custody if the test comes back positive?

Why do other states not seem to be stymied by allowing a divorce before birth?

I know democrats have issues with understand basic biology, so try and follow along....pregnancy lasts 9 months. In the oh-so-blue state of Maryland there is a year waiting period between separation and divorce.

So the wife could conceive on the last night before the separation and will have given birth before ANYONE is allowed a divorce.

This affects both the man and the woman. And while I wholeheartedly agree that Maryland is a nanny state for other reasons, this isn't one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 they are definitely trying to make women feel under attack but this law is to protect the rights of all 3 people (man, woman, child) and has been existed for decades.

Plus it makes women look dumb, like they aren’t capable of understanding what they read and what the laws are about divorce.

Protecting you by not letting you divorce the person you want to divorce. No thanks.

Women are plenty capable of understanding what this means.

Obtuseness is your forte. You can file for divorce and go before a judge and receive temporary orders; you can live separately. The divorce will be finalized after the birth of the child.

[Anonymous]

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?

What does that have to do with the timing for divorce? Let the parents decide if they want to do automatic or paternity test. Dad can give his paternity sample with the divorce papers. There is not real need for this law in this day and age. Also, many states simply allow the father to sign an acknowledgement form, which also can be filed with the divorce papers. There are many less draconian ways to address this same issue.

[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.

Have never known anyone to get divorced? Because that is exactly how it works. When I divorced my DXH in Maryland we absolutely had to show the court how our child would be cared for and supported.

You can't be this stupid.

+1 I am guessing more than a few of these posters are young, naive, unmarried and sexually active. They have no idea about laws, marriage, divorce, and children.

I think they are political shills, 50+, and trying to deflect from Biden falling down and talking about boning his wife by pretending a law that has been in place since 1973 is “new” and attacks women.

[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?

What does that have to do with the timing for divorce? Let the parents decide if they want to do automatic or paternity test. Dad can give his paternity sample with the divorce papers. There is not real need for this law in this day and age. Also, many states simply allow the father to sign an acknowledgement form, which also can be filed with the divorce papers. There are many less draconian ways to address this same issue.

Parents don’t decide a legal process.