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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean all women of childbearing ages have to submit to a pregnancy test during a divorce?

What if they've been separated for a long while and have a new partner and that partner is the father?

What if they are just newly pregnant and want to go out of state for an abortion and don't want to submit to a test?

WTF

Perhaps you could get some of your answers here.

https://children-laws.laws.com/legitimacy/history/legitimated

Those are AI generated texts. No thanks.

And anyway there's nothing there about whether the state of Misery is going to force women in the process of divorce to take a pregnancy test, which is wildly invasive of privacy. Nor what happens if a woman has been separated for long time and tries to divorce when she is in a new relationship and becomes pregnant.

Then maybe read through this info from Connecticut, beginning with out of wedlock.

https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/Notebooks/Pathfinders/Paternity.pdf

What does Connecticut have to say about Missouri? Weird.

Showing you that it is not just red states and Missouri with laws protecting children, the unborn, etc. Terminology addresses paternity, legitimation, out of wedlock, etc even in CT. Pick your state. And terminology. All have similar intent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean all women of childbearing ages have to submit to a pregnancy test during a divorce?

What if they've been separated for a long while and have a new partner and that partner is the father?

What if they are just newly pregnant and want to go out of state for an abortion and don't want to submit to a test?

WTF

Perhaps you could get some of your answers here.

https://children-laws.laws.com/legitimacy/history/legitimated

Those are AI generated texts. No thanks.

And anyway there's nothing there about whether the state of Misery is going to force women in the process of divorce to take a pregnancy test, which is wildly invasive of privacy. Nor what happens if a woman has been separated for long time and tries to divorce when she is in a new relationship and becomes pregnant.

Then maybe read through this info from Connecticut, beginning with out of wedlock.

https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/Notebooks/Pathfinders/Paternity.pdf

What does Connecticut have to say about Missouri? Weird.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean all women of childbearing ages have to submit to a pregnancy test during a divorce?

What if they've been separated for a long while and have a new partner and that partner is the father?

What if they are just newly pregnant and want to go out of state for an abortion and don't want to submit to a test?

WTF

Perhaps you could get some of your answers here.

https://children-laws.laws.com/legitimacy/history/legitimated

Those are AI generated texts. No thanks.

And anyway there's nothing there about whether the state of Misery is going to force women in the process of divorce to take a pregnancy test, which is wildly invasive of privacy. Nor what happens if a woman has been separated for long time and tries to divorce when she is in a new relationship and becomes pregnant.

Then maybe read through this info from Connecticut, beginning with out of wedlock.

https://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/Notebooks/Pathfinders/Paternity.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean all women of childbearing ages have to submit to a pregnancy test during a divorce?

What if they've been separated for a long while and have a new partner and that partner is the father?

What if they are just newly pregnant and want to go out of state for an abortion and don't want to submit to a test?

WTF

Perhaps you could get some of your answers here.

https://children-laws.laws.com/legitimacy/history/legitimated

Those are AI generated texts. No thanks.

And anyway there's nothing there about whether the state of Misery is going to force women in the process of divorce to take a pregnancy test, which is wildly invasive of privacy. Nor what happens if a woman has been separated for long time and tries to divorce when she is in a new relationship and becomes pregnant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean all women of childbearing ages have to submit to a pregnancy test during a divorce?

What if they've been separated for a long while and have a new partner and that partner is the father?

What if they are just newly pregnant and want to go out of state for an abortion and don't want to submit to a test?

WTF

Perhaps you could get some of your answers here.

https://children-laws.laws.com/legitimacy/history/legitimated

Anonymous wrote:So does this mean all women of childbearing ages have to submit to a pregnancy test during a divorce?

What if they've been separated for a long while and have a new partner and that partner is the father?

What if they are just newly pregnant and want to go out of state for an abortion and don't want to submit to a test?

WTF

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.

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?

+1

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.

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

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.

No one lied

If you think they are stopping at BC for women you are dumber than dumb

Women didn’t have credit cards til the 70s they are going to roll it all back you morons. Wake up!

We have members of the Republican Party screwing 20 year old interns, spewing women who wear shorts and get raped it’s their fault,

Nothing in Project 2025 is good unless of course you are brain dead

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?