I’m aware that in some states if a married women has a baby by someone other than her husband, the child is considered a child of the husband, not the natural father.
Family law isn’t designed to regulate men or women. It’s designed to superintend the best interests of children. I’m not taking a position on that, just explaining.
Hi Kim, I've read all of the replies you've posted on this thread, and thank you for providing all of us with more info on this issue. Full disclosure, I've obtained all of my legal "experience" from Law & Order reruns, but couldn't this be addressed by simply having a child-support clause included in the divorce decree, in which the father confirms paternity and commits to financial support for the (currently) unborn child?
Unfortunately, the bio-dad isn’t a party to the divorce. He can ask to be made a party but that usually requires counsel. Often, the bio-father wants nothing to do with the whole thing. Once the divorce is final the legal father (ex-husband) will be ordered to support a child who is not his. The court will not leave a child without a father and support.
My bad, I should have been clearer. I meant a situation with the current husband is the father of the child. I understand where you're coming from regarding the bio-dad not being the husband.
I think I see what you’re asking. As the laws are presently structured a husband IS the father, so a court is unlikely to add an unnecessary step just so the parties can be divorced sooner.
Divorces take so long that this is rarely an issue. Also, the only thing that cannot be granted is the divorce. Either party can file for divorce, obtain temporary orders, etc. An abused party can obtain a protective order even without filing for divorce. No one is required to live with someone just because they’re married to them.
A divorce will not be granted if a wife is pregnant. It will have to wait until after the child is born, and by law will contain provisions for contact and support. Support amounts are statutory in most states although there are also reasons for deviation in many instances. So, the husband doesn’t have to commit to anything. By being married to a pregnant woman the law commits him, even if she was pregnant when they met.
Legally speaking-- I'm just not seeing the difference between a pregnant woman who is married versus a pregnant woman who was unmarried, in the end the child will still have the the same legal outcome.
It just feels like to me that the law was designed deliberately to protect the "sanctity of marriage" although it is hiding behind a different disguise. I'm not a lawyer though, but if you ever need any Logistics advice I'm your girl. 😁
I don’t know how to explain it more clearly. In a marriage a child born has a legal mother and father with duties of care and support.
Outside of a marriage a child has no father unless one can be legally proved (people violate court orders all of the time, mothers could have had multiple partners, or mom has no idea at all whether the child is her husband’s or not.
I’ve practiced for forty years. You aren’t the first smart person who cannot follow this, believe me.
I live in Texas and we have the same laws. Honestly, I was so used to being treated as less than a citizen when I found out that it didn’t even occur to me that pregnant women can get divorced other places. 🤯
My father was a trial lawyer in Massachusetts and in the 1980s, when marital rape was still legal across the country (and I found out the hard way), that the reason was because according to the law, a wife is the husband's property, and he can deal with his property as he sees fit. I believe that even to this day, there are some states where this still holds true. So for most of this country's history, women had all the rights and privileges of a chair. Additionally, a man's children are his property. So if the vessel is carrying his property, hey she's not free to go, that would be theft, it would be as if his cow bolted the fence with his child on her back, got to mend that fence, can't let the cow get loose.
Jess, this information is too important to put behind a paywall. Would you please, please put it on Facebook? As a Kansan, I can't vote for you, but I believe you are an important voice for everyone!
I’m a family law attorney in OH. That’s true in most states. No court will act to make a child illegitimate for all sorts of public policy reasons—good public policy reasons.
Also, all law is archaic. It’s based in principles that are in many cases ancient, and it doesn’t lend itself to the way people think things “ought” to be. The court isn’t charged with considering the interests of either parent, but the best interests of a child.
This law was established under the doctrine that it’s in the best interest of a child to have two parents. You can agree or disagree (I’ve argued both sides in individual cases) but the doctrine exists.
This policy is the standard. If you have evidence of states that don’t use it I’d be interested.
Yes, “illegitimate” is still a legal term. A child born as issue of a marriage is legitimate and a child born otherwise isn’t. It’s not a matter of political correctness, it’s just a legal term.
Oof. I didn't know the term was still applied to children. New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Washington, and Massachusetts do not apply a pregnancy rider to divorce.
In fairness, outside of certain cases nobody calls kids that. I’ve cited to cases that use the word “bastard” that were no older than the ‘50s. The law runs behind public sentiment.
If we know the child is not the husband’s and the split is amicable we will bring the real father in as a party, file a parentage for him and terminate husband’s rights on the same day. We will also order support from the biological father. That order continues until (and if) the biological father and mother marry. If they don’t, the order just continues.
A husband is by law the father of a child born in a marriage. Pursuing him for support is much easier if the parentage step is skipped. Mothers are the natural custodians of their children, by law, but men have no obligation without the intercession of a court.
If a man dies before he is found to be a legal father, his SS benefits and other benefits will not pass to his child.
The child will not be covered on health insurance and in some states life insurance.
So what Missouri is doing is that is more extreme from policy/legal standpoints than other states?
Not arguing, just trying to determine if Missouri is as draconian as I suspect or is it in line with what other states do in these sorts of situations.
I don't see why the court would look any differently in preventing a married woman from a divorce - plus we have DNA test now if there were a particular concern on paternity.
Unmarried women get pregnant and they are still able to settle custody and paternity without being forced to stay with that particular man. I'm not a lawyer, I guess I just don't see the difference..... it certainly seems draconian to me. And for women in abusive marriages, this could be a death sentence.
If the husband wanted to divorce his pregnant wife he would be able to legally do that, right?
There is no “concern” about parentage in the legal context of a marriage. If the child was conceived outside of the marriage there are steps which must be taken legally.
There has been DNA testing for decades. It clarifies paternity to nearly 100% but is only ordered by courts after a child is born. It’s expensive and considered invasive and the labs are backed up.
I’m aware that in some states if a married women has a baby by someone other than her husband, the child is considered a child of the husband, not the natural father.
Yes, I have heard of this in many states.
That is f*ing crazy! I never even thought that that could be a thing in 2024.
I know of several folks who found out in their late teens that their legal name was not the name they had used since birth. For goodness sake...
Women are more regulated than guns.....
Family law isn’t designed to regulate men or women. It’s designed to superintend the best interests of children. I’m not taking a position on that, just explaining.
Hi Kim, I've read all of the replies you've posted on this thread, and thank you for providing all of us with more info on this issue. Full disclosure, I've obtained all of my legal "experience" from Law & Order reruns, but couldn't this be addressed by simply having a child-support clause included in the divorce decree, in which the father confirms paternity and commits to financial support for the (currently) unborn child?
Unfortunately, the bio-dad isn’t a party to the divorce. He can ask to be made a party but that usually requires counsel. Often, the bio-father wants nothing to do with the whole thing. Once the divorce is final the legal father (ex-husband) will be ordered to support a child who is not his. The court will not leave a child without a father and support.
My bad, I should have been clearer. I meant a situation with the current husband is the father of the child. I understand where you're coming from regarding the bio-dad not being the husband.
I think I see what you’re asking. As the laws are presently structured a husband IS the father, so a court is unlikely to add an unnecessary step just so the parties can be divorced sooner.
Divorces take so long that this is rarely an issue. Also, the only thing that cannot be granted is the divorce. Either party can file for divorce, obtain temporary orders, etc. An abused party can obtain a protective order even without filing for divorce. No one is required to live with someone just because they’re married to them.
A divorce will not be granted if a wife is pregnant. It will have to wait until after the child is born, and by law will contain provisions for contact and support. Support amounts are statutory in most states although there are also reasons for deviation in many instances. So, the husband doesn’t have to commit to anything. By being married to a pregnant woman the law commits him, even if she was pregnant when they met.
All of this has been very eye-opening. Thanks again for taking the time to reply to all of the posts and sharing all of this information.
Legally speaking-- I'm just not seeing the difference between a pregnant woman who is married versus a pregnant woman who was unmarried, in the end the child will still have the the same legal outcome.
It just feels like to me that the law was designed deliberately to protect the "sanctity of marriage" although it is hiding behind a different disguise. I'm not a lawyer though, but if you ever need any Logistics advice I'm your girl. 😁
I don’t know how to explain it more clearly. In a marriage a child born has a legal mother and father with duties of care and support.
Outside of a marriage a child has no father unless one can be legally proved (people violate court orders all of the time, mothers could have had multiple partners, or mom has no idea at all whether the child is her husband’s or not.
I’ve practiced for forty years. You aren’t the first smart person who cannot follow this, believe me.
Happened to me. Maryland
It happens everywhere. I have no clue how a state would “find a way” around it, because it is not going to order prenatal DNA testing.
With Obergefell, the identical rules apply to marital partners of the same sex.
I live in Texas and we have the same laws. Honestly, I was so used to being treated as less than a citizen when I found out that it didn’t even occur to me that pregnant women can get divorced other places. 🤯
I don’t know of anywhere that they can.
Google tells me only Missouri, Texas, Arkansas, and Arizona have this ban.
No, I’m a family lawyer in OH and we have it.
Good to know!
If you read through all of the comments I did try to answer some people about why these laws exist. Not defense, just explanation.
This was my reality - in MO, in 1987. Things don’t change fast in MO.😢
My father was a trial lawyer in Massachusetts and in the 1980s, when marital rape was still legal across the country (and I found out the hard way), that the reason was because according to the law, a wife is the husband's property, and he can deal with his property as he sees fit. I believe that even to this day, there are some states where this still holds true. So for most of this country's history, women had all the rights and privileges of a chair. Additionally, a man's children are his property. So if the vessel is carrying his property, hey she's not free to go, that would be theft, it would be as if his cow bolted the fence with his child on her back, got to mend that fence, can't let the cow get loose.
My God.
Jess, this information is too important to put behind a paywall. Would you please, please put it on Facebook? As a Kansan, I can't vote for you, but I believe you are an important voice for everyone!
I’m a family law attorney in OH. That’s true in most states. No court will act to make a child illegitimate for all sorts of public policy reasons—good public policy reasons.
I don't know...plenty of other states have figured this out. The law is archaic. Is the term "illegitimate" still used in courts? Good lord!
Also, all law is archaic. It’s based in principles that are in many cases ancient, and it doesn’t lend itself to the way people think things “ought” to be. The court isn’t charged with considering the interests of either parent, but the best interests of a child.
This law was established under the doctrine that it’s in the best interest of a child to have two parents. You can agree or disagree (I’ve argued both sides in individual cases) but the doctrine exists.
This policy is the standard. If you have evidence of states that don’t use it I’d be interested.
Yes, “illegitimate” is still a legal term. A child born as issue of a marriage is legitimate and a child born otherwise isn’t. It’s not a matter of political correctness, it’s just a legal term.
Oof. I didn't know the term was still applied to children. New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Washington, and Massachusetts do not apply a pregnancy rider to divorce.
In fairness, outside of certain cases nobody calls kids that. I’ve cited to cases that use the word “bastard” that were no older than the ‘50s. The law runs behind public sentiment.
Now, of course, it’s running counter to it.
If we know the child is not the husband’s and the split is amicable we will bring the real father in as a party, file a parentage for him and terminate husband’s rights on the same day. We will also order support from the biological father. That order continues until (and if) the biological father and mother marry. If they don’t, the order just continues.
I’m in OH. We do.
What would some of those “good” public policy reasons be?
A husband is by law the father of a child born in a marriage. Pursuing him for support is much easier if the parentage step is skipped. Mothers are the natural custodians of their children, by law, but men have no obligation without the intercession of a court.
If a man dies before he is found to be a legal father, his SS benefits and other benefits will not pass to his child.
The child will not be covered on health insurance and in some states life insurance.
Those are only some of the policies.
Thank you.
So what Missouri is doing is that is more extreme from policy/legal standpoints than other states?
Not arguing, just trying to determine if Missouri is as draconian as I suspect or is it in line with what other states do in these sorts of situations.
No, it’s in line with other states.
I don't see why the court would look any differently in preventing a married woman from a divorce - plus we have DNA test now if there were a particular concern on paternity.
Unmarried women get pregnant and they are still able to settle custody and paternity without being forced to stay with that particular man. I'm not a lawyer, I guess I just don't see the difference..... it certainly seems draconian to me. And for women in abusive marriages, this could be a death sentence.
If the husband wanted to divorce his pregnant wife he would be able to legally do that, right?
There is no “concern” about parentage in the legal context of a marriage. If the child was conceived outside of the marriage there are steps which must be taken legally.
There has been DNA testing for decades. It clarifies paternity to nearly 100% but is only ordered by courts after a child is born. It’s expensive and considered invasive and the labs are backed up.
Divorces are not granted where one party is pregnant.
No.