Latest / Family Law Talk / The end of Missouri's pregnancy divorce rule

Transcript

The end of Missouri's pregnancy divorce rule · Family Law Talk

0:01
Speaker 1: Welcome to Familylaw Talk. Familylaw Talk presented by Kirk Stangy
0:06
of Stangy Law Firm PC. Stangy Law Firm is a
0:10
multi state family law firm. Now here's your host, Kirk Stangy.
0:18
Speaker 2: Welcome to Family Law Talk.
0:19
Speaker 3: We have an interesting topic today. The topic is the
0:23
end of Missouri's pregnancy divorce rule and this episode today
0:28
is based on an article on our blog, Familylawheadquarters dot
0:32
com dated May twenty first, twenty twenty six, and the
0:36
title of this article is Missouri's new pregnancy divorce law
0:41
raises difficult questions for courts. So as a follow up
0:44
to the episode today, going over to Familawheadquarters dot com
0:48
and read this article for more information on this topic.
0:51
But let's go ahead and jump into the topic at hand.
0:54
And Missouri, something really interesting happened recently, which is this
0:59
new piece of legislation that seemed to breeze through the
1:03
Missouri House and Senate and it was signed by the
1:07
governor making it the law, and it's going to go
1:09
on effect in Missouri this year. And basically, what this
1:13
law allows is for folks to get divorced while the
1:18
wife is still pregnant and so it's definitely interesting and
1:22
definitely a big change in terms of how things have
1:26
worked for a long time in Missouri. I can tell
1:29
you this is my twenty six years attorney, and this
1:32
up ends how everything worked in terms of pregnancy and
1:37
divorce before. And what I find fascinating about this topic
1:41
is a few things. One, I mean, I'm not a
1:43
politician and I don't want to be, and I will
1:45
never be. But I find it interesting that Republicans and
1:48
Democrats all got on board this, that it just breezed
1:51
through and it seemed to be great uniformity in favor
1:56
of this law. I find that pretty fascinating. Is a
1:59
family law attorney, and it's surprising in a.
2:03
Speaker 2: Lot of ways.
2:04
Speaker 3: I would tell y'all, and again, I'm not trying to
2:06
take sides on the law, whether it's a good law,
2:08
whether it's a bad law. I'm just a lawyer. I'm
2:12
not a legislator. I'm not a politician. So what legislatures
2:16
and the governor and politicians want to do, that's up
2:19
to them. Is a family law attorney at the end
2:23
of the day, look, I'll handle cases according to the law,
2:26
and that's how our firm will do it, so it
2:27
really doesn't particularly matter to me, but it's just sort
2:30
of fascinating. So let me just sort of break this down.
2:34
I mean, I've had cases where this is a real
2:36
issue throughout my career. Okay, so you have these cases
2:40
where husband and wife are married but they're going to
2:44
be going through a divorce, and a lot of these
2:46
cases that I've had, and there's a few that really
2:49
come to mind, husband and wife are separated. They haven't
2:53
been together for a while, as a scenario I've seen,
2:56
so they've split up, they're not together, and in a
3:00
lot of these cases, the parties began dating and they
3:02
began dating other people. And what I have seen happen
3:07
is then wife get pregnant while the divorce itself is pending.
3:12
And so the way things would work throughout my entire
3:16
career is that the divorce wouldn't be dismissed, but in
3:21
since the divorce was stayed, and it would be stayed
3:24
until after the baby was born. And so I mean,
3:27
just think about this practically. I mean, let's say wife
3:31
is two months pregnant when she finds out divorce delayed,
3:34
you know, about seven months off wife's three months pregnant
3:38
when she finds out. Divorce delayed about six months. So
3:41
the divorce is still going to happen. The divorce isn't
3:44
going to be stopped. It just stopped for a period
3:47
of months. And what I have found very interesting in
3:52
terms of the cases I have had is that husband
3:55
was not dead.
3:57
Speaker 2: In fact, I can't think.
3:58
Speaker 3: Of the case throughout my career that I I've had.
4:00
Maybe I've forgotten. I've divorced more people than I can
4:02
ever begin to count, but I cannot think of the
4:05
case that I had where wife was pregnant while the
4:09
divorce was pending and it was husband's baby. The cases
4:12
I've had, everybody stipulated that they didn't have sexual relations
4:17
at the relevant time period, that the baby was not husband's.
4:21
It was her new boyfriends, something like that, somebody she
4:25
was dating, somebody she had an encounter with, but it
4:28
was not husband's baby. And so what I've seen throughout
4:33
my career in these times the cases is the husband frustrated,
4:37
the husband upset because the husband's like, I just want
4:39
to get a divorce, and my wife went out started
4:44
dating and she got pregnant, and then I got to
4:47
wait till this baby's born before we can get divorced.
4:51
And the guys that I've had in these situations were like,
4:54
why why do we have to wait? I didn't have
4:58
sexual relations with her during the relevant time period. My
5:01
wife will say, we didn't have sexual relations during the
5:03
relevant time period.
5:05
Speaker 2: Why in the world do we have to wait.
5:09
Speaker 3: Well, the rationale, at least the way it was explained
5:12
to me is a lawyer, was that, Okay, that might
5:16
be true, but when a baby's born of a marriage
5:21
or right, I mean, there's conception during the marriage, then
5:24
it's presumed that husband is father. And so what courts
5:29
typically wanted to see was once the baby was born,
5:33
then you could do a paternity test, and if the
5:37
child was not husbands then what we would do is
5:42
we would attach in the biological dad and as a
5:45
third party respondent into the divorce itself. Okay, we then
5:52
get the parties divorced, and what would happen is then
5:56
wife with the biological dad would work something out in
6:00
terms of custody of this baby. And I've seen this
6:04
go down a couple of different ways. I can think
6:06
of a case where mother was in a relationship with
6:09
his boyfriend that she got pregnant by and what they
6:13
did in that particular case is did a joint physical
6:16
and joint legal custody arrangement. And right, they stipulated that
6:21
boyfriend was dad. There's no child support, but they established
6:24
paternity and they just put joint physical and joint legal custody.
6:29
And that was kind of it, not particularly a big deal.
6:33
I mean, I have seen other cases where wife is
6:35
pregnant by a boyfriend or something like that and they're
6:39
not together, and then what they end up having to
6:42
do is litigate custy, is what I've seen. So wife
6:46
with the gentleman that got a pregnant would then have
6:48
to litigate custody and figure out custody, and then husband
6:53
would be relieved. I can finally get divorced. Clearly, I'm
6:56
not the dad. Why do I get to do all
6:58
this waiting when it's not my fault that wife got
7:02
pregnant and the baby clearly wasn't mine. Okay, this is
7:04
the scenario that I have seen in my career in
7:08
multiple instances. You know something along these lines. Okay, but
7:14
when you look at the rationale of this law, the
7:18
rationale was a little bit different, and it's just for me,
7:23
I haven't seen this. I mean, maybe other lawyers have
7:26
seen this. Maybe this has happened. The proponents of this
7:31
legislation seem to think it's happened. I tried to do
7:34
some research on the legislative history to see what kind
7:38
of data or whatever there was to back it up.
7:40
Maybe it was there and I just can't find it.
7:43
Speaker 2: I don't know.
7:44
Speaker 3: But the argument is that wife wants a divorce, husband
7:49
doesn't want a divorce, and husband is maybe somebody who
7:53
perpetuates domestic violence, which, of course domestic violence is terrible.
7:58
And the rationale was that the husband who doesn't want
8:02
a divorce then impregnate's wife who does want a divorce,
8:06
in order to keep her married to him. Like this
8:09
is the whole rationale of the bill, at least the
8:13
way I seem to understand it from my research on it.
8:17
So the argument is that women should be able to
8:20
get divorced while pregnant. I mean, they shouldn't encounter a
8:22
situation where the husband purposely impregnates them to avoid the divorce.
8:29
And so let's get the wives pregnant now and then
8:32
the cycle of domestic violence and then these marriages.
8:35
Speaker 2: And allow the wives to move on.
8:37
Speaker 3: It's just fascinating to me because I have not personally
8:40
seen that in twenty six years of my legal career,
8:43
and again, I've divorced more people than I could ever
8:46
begin to count. Now, I'm not saying it hasn't happened.
8:48
I'm sure it has. But I just find the whole
8:52
thing very interesting because the scenario I've seen is the
8:57
opposite where the husband is I want to get divorced,
9:01
and why do I got to wait to this baby's
9:03
born and it's not my baby.
9:05
Speaker 2: It's not my baby.
9:06
Speaker 3: We don't even live together, we weren't having sexual relations
9:09
with each other. It makes no sense. So it's kind
9:12
of interesting. This bill is kind of, you know, put
9:15
out there is like this great thing for women who
9:18
want to get divorced while pregnant. But I sort of
9:21
find it interesting because when I think back to past clients,
9:24
my viewpoint of it is is men are going to
9:26
like this more because men, when their wife gets pregnant
9:29
by another man, they can't get divorced and they don't
9:33
have to wait around waiting for the baby to be
9:36
born to prove that they're not the dad when they
9:38
already know they're not the dad, So just really interesting.
9:42
Here's the other thing. And I think the biggest potential
9:46
problem with this law change. And as I read the statute,
9:52
I have no idea how this is really going to
9:54
be addressed. I really don't know. I mean, under this law,
10:00
then wife can get the divorce while she's still pregnant. Okay,
10:05
practically speaking, in some cases, it could be a real
10:09
question about who dad is. Is it husband, is it
10:12
a new boyfriend or some other man who knows?
10:16
Speaker 2: We don't know.
10:17
Speaker 3: But what I find really interesting is so you divorce
10:20
these people.
10:20
Speaker 2: Let's say you.
10:21
Speaker 3: Divorce them while wife is five months pregnant, six months pregnant,
10:25
or whatever. Unborn baby or fetus, however you want to
10:30
categorize this. I'm sure we got some pro choice people
10:33
listening to this and they would say fetus. I'm sure
10:35
we got some pro life people listening to this they
10:38
would say unborn baby. I don't want to touch that
10:40
topic with a ten foot poll here, but I'm just
10:43
saying the issue is, how do you deal with custody
10:49
of an unborn baby or an unborn fetus, however you
10:53
would want to categorize it, that isn't even born yet.
10:56
And I think a lot of listeners would say, well,
10:58
what do you mean? And this is what I mean.
11:01
We don't know if the baby's a boy. We don't
11:04
know if the baby's a girl. We don't know if
11:09
the baby will be healthy, if there's medical complications, whether
11:14
the baby will have special needs. We don't even know
11:18
who the father is for sure, because you can't do
11:21
a paternity test with the baby in the womb. At
11:24
least that's my understanding. I'm not a medical professional, but
11:27
as a family attorney for twenty six years, I have
11:30
never seen a paternity test down while the baby's.
11:33
Speaker 2: In the womb.
11:34
Speaker 3: I was always told that's not safe, and you got
11:36
a way to the babies born to do that. So
11:39
you're dealing with custody of a baby or an unborn
11:45
feet is, however you want to categorize it, when you
11:47
don't know if it's a boy or a girl, there's
11:49
medical complications, whether there's special needs, and you don't even
11:51
know who the father is for sure. I just find
11:54
that fascinating, and I don't understand the other thing I
11:58
find really interesting about think about this too. We all know,
12:06
you know when when there's a baby, you know the
12:10
question gets to be is the dad a good dad,
12:13
Is the dad going to be involved dad? Is the
12:15
dad good with babies? Or is the dad not necessarily
12:21
going to be a good dad, doesn't want to be involved,
12:24
isn't good with babies? These kinds of things, And then
12:27
flip this on its head, because I don't want to
12:29
be sexist here, we can have the same questions.
12:31
Speaker 2: About the moms.
12:33
Speaker 3: Some moms are static moms, They're fantastic moms. They go
12:38
above and beyond to care for their baby, and they
12:41
do great. Some moms don't do well with a new baby,
12:45
crying babies. Some moms have postpartum depressions, some moms have
12:48
substance abuse problems. Some moms you know, might have medical
12:52
conditions or whatever. And so historically, in the context of
12:56
a divorce or FAMI law case, courts are to look
12:58
at the best interest of the child. So, I mean,
13:02
one of the things you look at is the quality
13:04
of the dad and the quality of the mom and
13:05
making the determination about the best interest of the child.
13:09
How do you really know, particularly with first time parents,
13:14
how good they're going to be until that baby is born.
13:18
So where I'm fascinated is this. When Missouri courts enter
13:22
custoy orders for fetuses or unborn babies in the womb,
13:28
however you want to categorize them.
13:29
Speaker 2: Are they going to do that?
13:30
Speaker 3: Are they going to say this child's or unborn fetuses
13:34
five months in the womb and here's what the cussie
13:38
is going to be when it's not even born yet.
13:41
I don't know how court can do that, but the
13:43
statue doesn't say they can't, so maybe they do.
13:47
Speaker 2: I don't know.
13:48
Speaker 3: And then you get in the constitutional questions in there too,
13:51
because you say, well, is an unborn fetus in the womb?
13:54
Speaker 2: Is that a life? Is that not a life?
13:57
Speaker 3: If it's not a life, then I don't know. Then
14:00
maybe the court doesn't address custody. If it is a
14:03
life like pro life circles, then maybe the court does.
14:09
But how do you do and how do you weigh
14:11
the best interest of a child when that child or
14:15
fetus is in the womb?
14:16
Speaker 2: I'm lost. I don't get it.
14:18
Speaker 3: Okay, it doesn't make much sense to me. I mean
14:20
the other option, which I mean, honestly I have never
14:24
seen happen in my career. Is a Missouri attorney. Now
14:28
look other states. I know do this, but I've never
14:33
seen it in Missouri. Now, some Missouri judges may do this,
14:36
but I can tell you this is not the norm.
14:38
I mean, in theory, you divorce the parties while wife
14:42
is still pregnant, and then what you bifurcate the case
14:46
and so then you kick the CUSSI issue until after
14:48
the baby's born, and maybe you deal with custody after.
14:52
Speaker 2: The baby is born.
14:54
Speaker 3: And if it's husbands, then you deal with custy. Then
14:57
if it's not husband, then what you attach the biological
15:01
father in as a third party respondent and deal with
15:04
custody then.
15:06
Speaker 2: I mean, that's.
15:06
Speaker 3: The only other real possibility. My thing is, when I
15:10
look at the statute, there's no clarity. It doesn't say
15:14
what's gonna happen. I mean, there's just nothing there. It
15:17
basically just says, hey, pregnancy is not a reason to
15:20
hold up the divorce. And again I'm summarizing this, you know,
15:25
in a way a little bit crudely, okay, But basically
15:28
that's what it says is pregnancy is not a reason
15:31
to hold up the divorce. So I don't know if
15:33
they're going to deal with custody of a baby or
15:35
an unborn fetus in the womb, or if they're going
15:37
to buy for Kate and then deal with custody after
15:39
the baby's born and then get people divorced. It is
15:42
really interesting, It's really fascinating, and it's a potential litigation
15:49
issue in court that you know, judges are going to
15:52
have to on sort of an ad hoc basis make
15:55
a determination. And I could see cases going up on
15:58
appeal on this point and they're being more litigation as
16:02
did this issue in terms of how you can deal
16:04
with custody of the unborn child or the unborn fetus.
16:09
How do you do that and is that even really
16:12
fairer and can you even weigh the best interest of
16:14
the child when it's still in the womb?
16:17
Speaker 2: Bizarre.
16:18
Speaker 3: So again, you know, I'm not a politician, I'm not
16:21
a legislator, you know, I don't want to be.
16:25
Speaker 2: I'm a lawyer.
16:27
Speaker 3: As a lawyer, in some ways, I mean, maybe this
16:29
results of more business for us as lawyers, So in
16:32
that regard, maybe it's not a bad thing as a
16:36
lawyer who owns a family law firm. But just sort
16:38
of practically speaking, if I'm just being honest, there's a
16:41
lot of stuff not dealt with in this new law.
16:44
And I don't personally know if the politicians who enacted
16:51
this and voted in favor of it really understand that.
16:53
I think they looked at it very simplistically, like, well,
16:56
women want to be divorced while pregnant, they don't want
16:58
to be held in the marriage by a domestic abuse.
17:00
And it's like, okay, I get that, but how often
17:03
does that actually occur? And is the opposite more often
17:07
true that it's the husbands who went out because the
17:10
wife is pregnant by another man and now they want.
17:13
Speaker 2: To be divorced.
17:13
Speaker 3: So when the bills attempting to help women, is it
17:17
actually helping men more? And did the legislature think about
17:20
that and if they look at data on that.
17:22
Speaker 2: I don't know.
17:23
Speaker 3: So really fascinating, A fascinating topic that I wanted to
17:26
cover today again. For more information on this topic, going
17:29
over to familawheadquarters dot com. Read the article dated May
17:34
twenty first, twenty twenty six, and the title of the
17:37
article is Missouri's new pregnancy divorce law raises difficult questions
17:42
for courts. Well, thanks for tuning in today. Stay tuned
17:46
to our next episode of FAMA Law Talk coming up.
17:48
Speaker 2: Thank you very much.
17:50
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Family Law Talk with Kirk Stangy.
17:54
Is it Stangy Lawfirm dot com for more about today's
17:57
topic or to put Stangy Lawfirm to work for your
18:00
family today. The choice of a lawyer is an important
18:04
decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. Either
18:07
the Supreme Court of Missouri or Illinois reviews or approves
18:09
certifying organizations or specialist designations. The information you obtained in
18:14
this podcast is not, nor is it intended to be
18:16
legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding
18:19
your individual situation. We invite you to contact us and
18:22
welcome your calls, letters, and electronic mail. Contacting us does
18:26
not create an attorney client relationship. Please do not send
18:29
any confidential information to us until such time as an
18:32
attorney client relationship has been established. As the results afford
18:36
no guarantee of future results in every case is different
18:38
and must be judged on its own merits. Kirk Stangy
18:41
is responsible for the content. Headquarters Office one twenty South
18:45
Central Avenue, Sweet four fifty, Clayton, Missouri, six thirty one
18:47
oh five kirk Stangy is licensed in Missouri, Illinois, and Kansas.