• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Four States Do Not Allow Divorce During Pregnancy. No Exception for Domestic Violence.

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Religion in government erodes freedom
Nonsense. There are tens and thousands of different religions that don't all agree with one another on just about everything. How is "religion" the problem here? WHICH one? WHICH religion? WHICH freedom?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
I have to laugh at all the knee jerk reactions. The woman isn't stuck with the guy..

FACT: pregnant wives CAN file for divorce in Missouri.

FACT: A woman can still leave her spouse, get a judgment for property division and spousal support, child support for any existing children, and custody of any existing born alive children – she just can’t finalize the dissolution of the marriage until the baby is born and custody is finalized as to that child, or she goes to another state to have an abortion.

 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
But what is the reason for this? Why should pregnancy affect the status of either party in any way? If an non-pregnant couple can finalize a divorce, why does pregnancy change anything?
It has to do with custody and child support.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Because they haven't realized that sometimes the worst place for a child is with the parents (it tends to take psychology and social work to reveal that, two things Reps and Cons aren't too keen on or big into).
I guess either parent is what you mean.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
So? That doesn't mean they won't try and tighten control. It's a crappy law to begin with, and two people in a relationship don't need the government's, and certainly not the church's okay to break up. Church needs to stay out of government, that don't directly involve religious issues.
Speaking of that, did you know that the Puritans did not allow the government to have any say in their marriages?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It has to do with custody and child support.
And I can see how they felt that way at one point in time. But there is no excuse for that now. With DNA we know who the father was. Married or not. In fact let's say that a couple started a divorce and the woman wanted to stick it to her husband. Divorces take a while and she could get impregnated by another man and try to force her husband to pay child support for a child that was not his. There would be no justice in that. If the woman was beaten and abused by a man a divorce will make it easier for her to protect herself from him.

In other words, even if a couple marries and they have a kid, the father is still on the hook. He has to pay child support. If they are getting a divorce and she gets impregnated by another he should not have to pay child support. If a couple that never marries and splits up and the man wants visitation rights he can prove that he has those rights with DNA. No marriage necessary. Making decisions based upon who the father actually is protects the child without forcing an unwilling marriage.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I'll wait.
Yes. But there's a reason I say social work taught me a new way to hate parents and a lot if times the kid needs services because it's the parent doing the damage. But try telling a parent high on the idea the parent knows best they are wrong.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
And I can see how they felt that way at one point in time. But there is no excuse for that now. With DNA we know who the father was. Married or not. In fact let's say that a couple started a divorce and the woman wanted to stick it to her husband. Divorces take a while and she could get impregnated by another man and try to force her husband to pay child support for a child that was not his. There would be no justice in that. If the woman was beaten and abused by a man a divorce will make it easier for her to protect herself from him.

In other words, even if a couple marries and they have a kid, the father is still on the hook. He has to pay child support. If they are getting a divorce and she gets impregnated by another he should not have to pay child support. If a couple that never marries and splits up and the man wants visitation rights he can prove that he has those rights with DNA. No marriage necessary. Making decisions based upon who the father actually is protects the child without forcing an unwilling marriage.
Like I have asked over and over and over again, has anyone with kids involved EVER gotten a a divorce quickly? I don't believe so.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
It has to do with custody and child support.
No, it doesn't.

Or if there is some backwards law still on the books in these backwards states that law should be removed.

A parent has the same right to custody or visitation whether they were divorced before the child was born, or after, or even if they were never married. It does not make an iota of difference if the child was conceived when the couple were married, divorced, or were never married. It would not matter if the couple signed the divorce papers and then went to the bedroom for one last time and conceived a child.

And likewise, the child has the same right to child support regardless of the marital status of their parents, it is completely irrelevant.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Like I have asked over and over and over again, has anyone with kids involved EVER gotten a a divorce quickly? I don't believe so.
Certain states offer a smoother road to splitsville, including New Jersey—where Weinberger practices—which has no mandated “cooling off” period. “We have a ‘benchmark’ of one year from filing to decree in the ‘typical divorce’ case that includes assets and children,” she says. For simpler cases in which spouses reach an agreement, the time to divorce could be weeks; more complex cases could extend beyond a year. “But there is no mandated—’this is how long it will take you to divorce’—law in New Jersey,” Weinberger says.​
Other swift states include New Hampshire (which has no minimum processing time), Nevada (which only requires six weeks of residency and minimum processing of 42 days), and Alaska (which has a 30-day minimum processing time for residents), according to the Weinberger Divorce & Family Law Group.​

 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
And I can see how they felt that way at one point in time. But there is no excuse for that now. With DNA we know who the father was. Married or not. In fact let's say that a couple started a divorce and the woman wanted to stick it to her husband. Divorces take a while and she could get impregnated by another man and try to force her husband to pay child support for a child that was not his. There would be no justice in that. If the woman was beaten and abused by a man a divorce will make it easier for her to protect herself from him.

In other words, even if a couple marries and they have a kid, the father is still on the hook. He has to pay child support. If they are getting a divorce and she gets impregnated by another he should not have to pay child support. If a couple that never marries and splits up and the man wants visitation rights he can prove that he has those rights with DNA. No marriage necessary. Making decisions based upon who the father actually is protects the child without forcing an unwilling marriage.
Two of the three ways to tell if a baby is the father's involve risks and costs that the mother may not be willing to take on. The third way involves considerable cost. Just to clarify.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Certain states offer a smoother road to splitsville, including New Jersey—where Weinberger practices—which has no mandated “cooling off” period. “We have a ‘benchmark’ of one year from filing to decree in the ‘typical divorce’ case that includes assets and children,” she says. For simpler cases in which spouses reach an agreement, the time to divorce could be weeks; more complex cases could extend beyond a year. “But there is no mandated—’this is how long it will take you to divorce’—law in New Jersey,” Weinberger says.​
Other swift states include New Hampshire (which has no minimum processing time), Nevada (which only requires six weeks of residency and minimum processing of 42 days), and Alaska (which has a 30-day minimum processing time for residents), according to the Weinberger Divorce & Family Law Group.​

Everyone, quick! Move to New Hampshire! Oh wait...
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
No, it doesn't.

Or if there is some backwards law still on the books in these backwards states that law should be removed.

A parent has the same right to custody or visitation whether they were divorced before the child was born, or after, or even if they were never married. It does not make an iota of difference if the child was conceived when the couple were married, divorced, or were never married. It would not matter if the couple signed the divorce papers and then went to the bedroom for one last time and conceived a child.

And likewise, the child has the same right to child support regardless of the marital status of their parents, it is completely irrelevant.
Take that up with someone else, not me. I didn't write the law.
 

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Fantome, I did not write the law. I am not defending the law or criticizing it for that matter. I am leaving Texas for Ohio in a few weeks anyway. Besides that I'm not married. Also, I've had a complete hysterectomy. So all that combined means that I really don't much care.
 
Top