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.
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.
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”.
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.