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.

  • NABDad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    … 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”?

    • LimeZest@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.