The turning point for Destonee was a car ride.
She describes a scene of emotional abuse: Pregnant with her third child, her husband yelled at her while her older two kids listened in the car. “He would call me awful things in front of them,” she says. “And soon my son would call me those names too.”
She made up her mind to leave him, but when she went to a lawyer to file for divorce, she was told to come back when she was no longer pregnant.
Destonee requested she be identified by only her first name. She says she still lives with abusive threats from her ex-husband. She couldn’t end her marriage because Missouri law requires women seeking divorce to disclose whether they’re pregnant — and state judges won’t finalize divorces during a pregnancy. Established in the 1970s, the rule was intended to make sure men were financially accountable for the children they fathered.
Women are property. That’s conservative shit. They want this to be the norm. All conservatives are bastards.
It’s pretty upsetting to begin with, but if you change the wording to: “Pregnant women in Missouri don’t have the right to get divorced” it’s somehow even worse.
The original intent seems to be the opposite. It was supposed to stop men from divorcing and avoiding financial responsibility of the child, it’s in the article.
It’s an awful rule even with that in mind though.
yeah it’s not like they couldn’t write something into law that dictates financial responsibility doesn’t magically disappear when a divorce goes through. Pretty sure that’s how it works in most places.
Exactly, if you’re married at time of pregnancy and don’t have evidence of infidelity it should be assumed that you’re the father. But this is Missouri, it may be about finances, but it’s unlikely that that’s the entire goal.
I don’t know much about how USA/Missouri was in 1970, but I’ll assume there was/is a lot of laws based around marriage as that was the norm for families back in the days. Might be as simple as the lawmakers being lazy and deciding it was easier to force people to stay married for the duration so they got the full legal framework as “protection”.
… state judges won’t finalize divorces during a pregnancy. Established in the 1970s, the rule was intended to make sure men were financially accountable for the children they fathered.
So, I’m assuming if you knock someone up in Missouri without being married, you don’t have to pay child support?
Are judges in Missouri just too damn stupid to include conceived but as yet unborn children in any child support requirements?
Or perhaps, it’s just about making sure men can continue to abuse their own “property”?
This law came around before DNA sequencing was common, they probably had some kind of archaic law making it hard to pin paternity on an unmarried father since you couldn’t just order a DNA test to show who created the baby.
That’s crazy
Well domestic violence is a cornerstone of Missouri Republican and the greater Republican party set of values after all.
Under his eye.
What? For reals?
just glass the south
Calm down there, Sherman
seriously
Dont glass it. theres good farmland there.
Just virusbomb it. #40kSolutions
Nah we just gotta do us a reconstruction. We always were supposed to. Unfortunately capitalists really fucked it up
Sounds reasonable.
WTAF?
But she can still leave without getting divorced, the divorce part can wait…
If she abandons the house and kids, it reflects poorly when custody, alimony, the house, etc are heard
That is an incredibly short sighted view, and I highly encourage you to expand your horizons.
Yeah, better stay in an abusive relationship and put herself in danger instead
Let me guess Missouri also assumes the father of a child is the husband, and even with modern DNA testing won’t change that even if it’s proven wrong. So the husband of a cheater that gets pregnant would be on the hook for child support for a child that was not his.
EDIT: I make a semi-related post pointing out other fucked up State marriage rights shit and somehow people try and twist that around as if I’m saying the OP doesn’t matter. No wonder nothing worthwhile gets fixed in this goddamned country while companies run roughshod over everyone. People are too busy arguing with each other over an opinion they disagree with, that they made up in a comment section of a website that doesn’t fucking matter.
What do you think is more important- that we stop cheating women trying to get child support from their ex-husbands or we allow women to divorce men who beat them?
Why does one of these things need to be higher priority than the other? They all need to be fixed. We don’t have to do one at a time.
Because one of those things ends up killing women. The other doesn’t generally end up killing anyone.
I’m not sure why this has to be spelled out to you.
Nothing needs to be spelled out. They are two separate issues. I never claimed one was better or worse than the other. I was just pointing out that there are other ass-backwards marriage related issues as well. We don’t have to focus on just one fucked up issue at a time to get things done in society.
Reading comprehension really has gone downhill online, people jumping to conclusions all over the place just because they want to be angry at something or assume everyone else is.
I never claimed one was better or worse than the other.
You sure implied it by suggesting they should be of equal priority:
Why does one of these things need to be higher priority than the other? They all need to be fixed. We don’t have to do one at a time.
I would suggest that most people in this world would consider stopping murder to be the higher priority than stopping fraud. I’m not sure why you don’t, but…
So prioritized things have a higher or lower precedence or importance. But if they have equal precedence, then there is no priority. Greater than and less than are not equal.
You might want to re-read my responses because your reading comprehension of them is lacking. I never said one issue was more important than the other. In fact, I never said they were equal importance either. I just made a comment pointing out there are also other marital law issues.
You are assuming I said or meant some sort of priority between issues, but I never said one was more important. I said they all needed to be fixed and we don’t have to do one thing at a time. That explicitly doesn’t put any sort of priority on anything.
Repeatedly insulting me does not make what you said any less an implication that fraud and murder are equally bad.
Furthermore, a compromise law such as the one you stated would take a long time to craft, whereas repealing this law would be fast.
So maybe just repeal the law and then work on your ideas?
