The statute, which can lead to reproductive coercion in a state that has banned abortion, has recently gained nationwide attention

At six months pregnant, H decided enough was enough. She had endured years of abuse from her husband and had recently discovered he was also physically violent towards her child. She contacted an attorney to help her get a divorce.

But she was stopped short. Her lawyer told her that she could not finalize a divorce in Missouri because she was pregnant. “I just absolutely felt defeated,” she said. H returned to the house she shared with her abuser, sleeping in her child’s room on the floor and continuing to face violence. On the night before she gave birth, she slept in the most secure room in the house: on the tile floor in the basement, with the family’s dogs.

Under a Missouri statute that has recently gained nationwide attention, every petitioner for divorce is required to disclose their pregnancy status. In practice, experts say, those who are pregnant are barred from legally dissolving their marriage. “The application [of the law] is an outright ban,” said Danielle Drake, attorney at Parks & Drake. When Drake learned her then husband was having an affair, her own divorce stalled because she was pregnant. Two other states have similar laws: Texas and Arkansas.

  • InformalTrifle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    As ridiculous as this law is, it seems like the article makes out that not being able to get divorced means more domestic violence but I don’t quite understand the implication. You can still move out/leave whether a piece of paper says you’re married or not, right?

    H returned to the house she shared with her abuser, sleeping in her child’s room on the floor and continuing to face violence

    Why did she return? So if she was told she could get divorced would she have returned?

    • Anamnesis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      8 months ago

      Very likely the reasons were financial. With multiple kids, depending on how much she works, she could sue for child support/alimony if she was divorced. But if she’s not divorced, he might control all the finances.

      • yamanii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m sure there are plenty of couples where people live separately for a period time because of work, how can the law prevent someone from just moving?

        • ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          Five minutes ago I would have asked how a law can possibly ban divorce during a pregnancy. Never ever give Republicans the benefit of the doubt.

        • EssentialCoffee@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          Inability to separate finances/custody arrangements for current children. Ability for your spouse to make medical decisions for you.

          Remember, we’re talking about people who are already at risk of violence.

        • FilterItOut@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Because pressure can be applied if you are not divorced, through kids, through money, through property laws, etc. If you take the kids with you and move away, is it kidnapping? Are you going to take that chance of the abuser finding a sympathetic cop in one of these states? Property is usually considered communal in marriage, so if the abuser takes the car it isn’t ‘theft.’ What if the abuser takes the dog and has it put down? Even if the abuser had to travel to where you are, had to take the dog by sneaking into the house you’re living in now, and had to take the dog to a vet who was out of the area so they didn’t know the abuser (and thus what they were doing), it wouldn’t be breaking the law because the dog is technically both of the married individuals’ property. You can’t prevent the abuser from picking up the kids from their school. The list goes on.

          Think of a way an abuser can twist the thumbscrews, and if there is not a divorce, and thus complete legal separation, the law (and I mean the legal rules, not cops by that) either shields them or ignores the issue when they are twisting down. By the by, none of these scenarios are made up. I’ve seen each one during my brief time working with families that have abusers.

    • AnalogyAddict@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Because leaving a relationship is the single most dangerous time for an abuse victim. Remaining married and not having divorce proceedings in place gives your spouse rights that can let them find and control you more easily if you try to leave. It’s safer to keep it secret until you can take necessary steps.