Missouri new law pregnant women can not finalize divorce

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a feminist and Dem but I think you’re misstating this. You can stilll separate and get an interim support order. The divorce isn’t finalized until after the birth in order to apply the paternity presumption. Without that, you’d need a paternity test which the father could fight and drag out. This really seems to me like not that big a deal. In Maryland it takes a year of separation anyway so that would get you until the birth.

This.

Why do you need a paternity test if the woman says the father is her ex husband?

Because sometimes women become pregnant with a baby that is fathered by another man during marriage. Men should not have to take responsibility for another man’s child.

Well that would be the case even if the woman wasn’t divorced. So how does that change the equation?? Again what does the divorced status have to do with whether the kid gets support from the father or a custody arrangement? No one’s explained how a pre-birth divorce would lead to more paternity disputes and complicated custody arrangements or how staying married until after birth would prevent them and custody battles. If a child is conceived while the couple is married then that should be enough unless the man disputes paternity. But if he is going to dispute paternity then what does it matter if he disputes it after having gotten divorced or before, if the couple was married when the baby was conceived?

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

[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

What evidence do you have about the bank accounts? I cannot find anything via google.

DP. There is none. The OP completely lied about that, as usual.

[Anonymous]

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.

No the child is not illegitimate.
and for goodness sakes please don’t say that out loud people will laugh at you

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

No the child is not illegitimate.
and for goodness sakes please don’t say that out loud people will laugh at you

No one is laughing. Regardless of terminology, that term and others get used.

[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.

No the child is not illegitimate.
and for goodness sakes please don’t say that out loud people will laugh at you

Why do you think they have a legal process in Virginia for the legitimation of a child?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No the child is not illegitimate.
and for goodness sakes please don’t say that out loud people will laugh at you

No one is laughing. Regardless of terminology, that term and others get used.

And you can choose not to use it. Just like you presumably choose not to use the term bastard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No the child is not illegitimate.
and for goodness sakes please don’t say that out loud people will laugh at you

No one is laughing. Regardless of terminology, that term and others get used.

And you can choose not to use it. Just like you presumably choose not to use the term bastard.

I don't use it but hear it used in certain school settings in some communities. Denying its occurrence doesn't change the fact that the term still gets used.

[Anonymous]

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.