News & Politics - Judge Won't Let Woman Divorce While She's Pregnant

ceilirose · 01-01-2005, 04:23 PM

Link -

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...vorce%20Denied

Quote:

Friday, December 31, 2004 · Last updated 3:03 p.m. PT

Judge won't let woman divorce while she's pregnant

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

SPOKANE, Wash. -- A Spokane woman trying to divorce her estranged husband two years after he was jailed for beating her has been told by a judge she can't get out of the marriage while she's pregnant.

The case pits a first-year attorney who argues that state law allows any couple to divorce if neither spouse challenges it against a longtime family law judge who asserts that the rights of the unborn child in this type of case trump a woman's right to divorce.

"There's a lot of case law that says it is important in this state that children not be illegitamized," Spokane County Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine told The Spokesman-Review newspaper.

Further complicating things, Shawnna Hughes claims her husband is not the child's father.

The bottom line, says Hughes' attorney, Terri Sloyer, is that there's nothing in state law that says a mother can't get a divorce if she's pregnant.

"We don't live in 15th-century England," Sloyer said. "I am absolutely dumbfounded by it."

Hughes' husband, Carlos, was convicted in 2002 of beating her. She separated from him after the attack and filed for divorce last April. She later became pregnant by another man and is due in March.

Her husband never contested the divorce, and Court Commissioner Pro Tem Julia Pelc approved it in late October.

However, the approved divorce papers didn't note that Hughes was pregnant. Sloyer filed amended papers to correct the omission, and the next day, she spoke with Bastine by phone. Bastine said he planned to rescind the divorce and then did so following a Nov. 4 hearing.

"It's not the child's fault that mom got pregnant," Bastine said. "The answer is, you don't go around doing that when you're not divorced."

Sloyer has appealed.

"This is a very dangerous precedent to set - particularly in this case, with a woman who is a victim of domestic violence," Sloyer said.

In comments submitted to Bastine, Hughes said: "If this court vacates my divorce and requires me to stay married to a man I have no desire ever to have a relationship with and who has brought significant physical harm to me over the years, I would be emotionally devastated. If the court vacates my divorce and stays it until the birth of my child, it will prevent me from marrying the father of my child prior to her birth."

The state's Uniform Parentage Act sets the rules for who cares for children, including those not yet born in cases of divorce. A husband is presumed to be the father of any child born up to 300 days after a divorce.

The judge argued that the paternity of Hughes' child needs to be determined before a divorce is finalized.

"One of the problems here was that the child was not made party to the litigation," Bastine said. "There are statutory provisions that deal with paternity. Those are the statutes that are critical ones that determine the rights of the child."

Hughes has stated in court records that the father is her boyfriend, Chauncey Jacques, who pleaded guilty to a gang-related shooting in 1998 that blinded an elderly man.

"She has the right to divorce and be free to marry whoever she wants," Sloyer said. "It's about the choice, the fundamental right to choose."

James H. Hardisty, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law, said he had never heard of a judge rescinding a divorce because of a woman's pregnancy, but noted that a 1981 state Supreme Court gives courts the right to put divorces on hold when matters like child custody and division of property still need to be resolved.

---

Information from: The Spokesman-Review, http://www.spokesmanreview.com

JW77 · 01-01-2005, 04:25 PM

Hmm...well, that's interesting.

Don't think I've ever heard of anything like that before. Seems strange to me.

*Ledi* · 01-01-2005, 05:10 PM

What the?!

Hot Like Fire · 01-01-2005, 06:45 PM

that is werid

***Jerry D*** · 01-01-2005, 07:06 PM

Quote:

"There's a lot of case law that says it is important in this state that children not be illegitamized," Spokane County Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine told The Spokesman-Review newspaper.

That makes no sense whatsoever. If the person she's divorcing isn't the child's father, how would that "not illegitamize" the child? Wouldn't it make more sense for the divorce to go through so she can marry the child of the father before the baby is born like she wants to do? The judge's reasoning is totally flawed in this case, and I hope that someone reverses his decision.

pacifierrocks · 01-01-2005, 07:11 PM

That has got to be one of the dumbest things that i have ever heard. The father of the child isn't even her husband but she's not allowed to divorce him. That judge needs his head checked.

Lexis · 01-01-2005, 08:13 PM

That is seriously screwed up. How can this judge keep her married to a man who beat her for fear of making the child illigitimate, even though the child doesn't belong to her husband?

Ugh.

Sparrowhawk · 01-01-2005, 08:16 PM

Personal rights eroded for the percieved benefit of someone who hasn't even been born yet. Gah.

alli balli · 01-01-2005, 08:16 PM

WTF? Since when does a kid have a "right" to not be illegitimate?

- annuscka - · 01-01-2005, 08:43 PM

Oh my. I thougt the term "illegitimate child" wasn't used these days?
Then there are one hell of a lot of them...

FinleyN1derland · 01-01-2005, 08:55 PM

This is horrible. She has to stay married to a man that beat her, just because she's pregnant? And it's not even his... That just does not make sense.

SuperDeluxe · 01-01-2005, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Further complicating things, Shawnna Hughes claims her husband is not the child's father.

She claims that he is not the father. You cant decide a court case, by claims.

The judge followed case law in the matter, where the child's paternty was still up in the air.

He has the legal right to do that.

I have to wonder if some of you even read the whole story.

Quote:

The judge argued that the paternity of Hughes' child needs to be determined before a divorce is finalized.

The PATERNITY of the child has not been determined yet, and yet everyone keeps on talking about how the child is not even the husbands. ?

Lexis · 01-01-2005, 11:22 PM

In my opinon (although not the law's obviously) paternity is irrelevent. A woman should not be forced to stay married to a man who beat her. Even if the child IS her husband's, it should not obligate her in anyway to stay married to him.

And the husband doesn't seem to be claiming the child is his so....

ceilirose · 01-01-2005, 11:34 PM

Beyond the fact that this judge is still throwing around the illegitimate label is that he's telling this woman what to do with her private life.

Which all pales with the fact that the husband is an abuser and had committed violent acts against his wife.

Lovesbitch · 01-01-2005, 11:34 PM

I don't think it should matter even if he is the father of her child, she shouldn't be forced to stay married to him after he beat her.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Judge Won't Let Woman Divorce While She's Pregnant