Reply to Missouri new law pregnant women can not finalize divorce

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Missouri new law pregnant women can not finalize divorce "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]GOP must control women at all costs.[/quote]

This law controls men too.[/quote]

+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? [b]What if the woman is abusive and the man needs a custody order to prevent her from alienating the baby?[/b] [/quote]

How exactly does staying married several months longer address that?[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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 [i]not[/i] 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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

+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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics