Pregnant Woman's Divorce Denied

[lizbud]

I didn't think a Judge could do that.:confused:


Wash. Judge Nixes Pregnant Woman's Divorce

By Associated Press
Published December 31, 2004, 9:23 PM CST

SPOKANE, Wash. -- A judge has refused to grant a divorce to a pregnant woman trying to leave her husband two years after he was jailed for beating her, ruling instead that she must wait until the child is born.

Shawnna Hughes' husband was convicted of abuse in 2002. 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, Carlos, never contested the divorce, and the court commissioner approved it in October. But the divorce papers failed to note that Hughes was pregnant, and when the judge found out, he rescinded the divorce.

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

Hughes' attorney, Terri Sloyer, said nothing in state law says a pregnant woman cannot get a divorce.

"We don't live in 15th-century England," said Sloyer, who has appealed.

Under Washington state law, a husband is presumed to be the father of any child born within 300 days of a divorce. The judge argued that the paternity of the child needs to be determined before a divorce can be finalized.

Hughes has stated in court records that her boyfriend is the child's father, and that the judge's decision prevented her from marrying him.

"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."
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press

[catnapper]

OMG... that is NUTS!

[dukedogsmom]

Funny how men can decide a lot about a woman's rights....NOT!

[KYS]

I heard a snip of this on the news. :(

[RobiLee]

WHAT?!

Wow, I don't even know what to say about this?

[Tonya]

That is just insane!

[QueenScoopalot]

That is crazy! At least the woman had the courage and spunk to get away from her abusive 'husband' before she became another statistic.

[Vio&Juni]

! What on earth is that?

[Karen]

I cannot help thinking there's more to the story than meets the eye. If there isn't, the judge should be disciplned. But is the "husband" still in jail? How long was he in jail? Does the "boyfriend" have a criminal record or history? How about the mother?

[DJFyrewolf36]

Originally posted by Karen
I cannot help thinking there's more to the story than meets the eye. If there isn't, the judge should be disciplned. But is the "husband" still in jail? How long was he in jail? Does the "boyfriend" have a criminal record or history? How about the mother?

I agree Karen, there are a lot of unsaid things here. I do agree though that pregnant or not, the woman does have the right to leave her husband if she so choses so far as I know. In this state, a divorce takes less time than it does to fill out a marage licence!!

If anyone has any updates, I'd like to see them. Im interested as to how all this turns out!

[zippy-kat]

Originally posted by lizbud
.... She later became pregnant by another man ...

"There's a lot of case law that says it is important in this state that children not be illegitimized..."


Wouldn't the baby still be illegitimate if the woman's not married to the father before birth? :confused:

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by lizbud

"We don't live in 15th-century England," said Sloyer, who has appealed.




Typical....

We live in 15th century United States of America....

SOMEONE wasn't paying attention in Geography class.....:rolleyes: :confused: :eek:

----------------------------------------------

Zip,

Semantics, dear, semantics...;)

[snappy]

I can say that when I went through my divorce the great state of Ohio had to ask me at the hearing (it was a disillusionment btw) if I was pregnant. My lawyer told me to say NO period. If I was, they would not grant the divorce until after the baby was born.

Pretty stupid if I do say so myself!

I just don't get it - didn't we get past all this when Murphy Brown had her baby on TV?!

[RICHARD]

Originally posted by snappy
My lawyer told me to say NO period.

Wouldn't THAT mean you are preggers????:confused: :eek: ;)

[lizbud]

Quote "Hughes' attorney, Terri Sloyer, said nothing in state law says a pregnant woman cannot get a divorce."


I don't know the laws in Washington state, but think this
judge clearly over reached his authority. Her attorney is appealing the case. It sould not matter if she or anyone else had
a criminal history, a divorce should still be granted.

The story appeared in the Chicago Tribune online edition. I will
look for updates as I can't believe this ruling will stand.

[mina'smomma]

Besides who is to says she isn't going to marry the baby's father.

[lizbud]

I saw a different story on this today. It has a few more facts
about this case. Seems she was granted a divorce & a week
later the divorce was rescinded by this judge. I still think this
judge was wrong on this.



Court keeps wife tied to abuser
Seattle judge invalidates divorce after he learns woman is pregnant

By Sam Howe Verhovek, Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. The Associated Press contributed to this report
Published January 10, 2005


SEATTLE -- The day she was granted a divorce from her abusive husband, Shawnna Hughes said, was "the happiest day of my life." But barely a week later, the 27-year-old medical assistant was back before a judge, who rescinded the order after learning Hughes was pregnant.

"Not only is it the policy of this court, it is the policy of the state that you cannot dissolve a marriage when one of the parties is pregnant," Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine told Hughes on Nov. 4.

Hughes says her husband is not the father and that he was in prison when she became pregnant.

The ruling blocking her divorce has provoked outrage among women's rights groups and provided ample fodder for local talk-radio hosts and newspaper columnists.

Experts said there was no blanket prohibition in the laws of this or any other state against pregnant women getting divorced; several Seattle-area family law practitioners said they had obtained divorces for pregnant clients.

The law states that any Washington resident who files for a no-fault divorce may get one. Hughes' husband did not respond to her petition, and a divorce was granted. But Bastine said the divorce was invalid because Hughes learned she was pregnant after the papers were served, so her husband was not aware of all the facts.

Hughes is appealing Bastine's decision.

The judge said in a telephone interview that the case involved a thicket of other legal issues--especially because she was receiving public-aid benefits, and the state had an interest in determining paternity.

The state of Washington objected to the divorce because it might leave the state unable to identify a father and pursue him for repayment of welfare money used to support the child. Bastine agreed to revoke the divorce until paternity is scientifically established after the child's birth, expected in mid-March.

Reasoning questioned

Several legal scholars questioned his reasoning, saying the law provides for paternity issues to be settled separately from a divorce. In Washington, a child born as many as 300 days after a divorce is legally presumed to have been fathered by the ex-husband unless a paternity test proves otherwise. Hughes said she and the man with whom she became pregnant planned to have such a test after the birth.

"I cannot think of any policy that would require this woman to stay married to a person who was in prison for abusing her," said Carol Bruch, a law professor at the University of California, Davis.

For the moment, Hughes, who lives in Spokane, remains married to her abuser--a situation she calls psychologically devastating. She said her 6-year union with Carlos Hughes was "more like a prison than a marriage."

When she got pregnant in June, Hughes said, her estranged husband was serving time for domestic assault. She said she hasn't had contact with Carlos Hughes, who recently was transferred to a jail in Montana to await trial on federal drug charges, for two years.

But, she said, her husband called her grandmother from jail and said he was taking the pregnancy as "a sign from God" that the couple should be together. "It made my stomach turn," Shawnna Hughes said.

Although there is a restraining order preventing Carlos Hughes from initiating any contact, Shawnna Hughes said she was terrified by the prospect of him coming back.

She has custody of their two boys, ages 5 and 3.

ACLU takes up case

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Northwest Women's Law Center have joined in Shawnna Hughes' appeal. If the ruling is upheld, they say, it not only amounts to discrimination but also could establish a perverse incentive for an abusive husband to get his wife pregnant and force her to stay married. It also could prompt some women to terminate their pregnancies to obtain a divorce.

Bastine also told Shawnna Hughes that she forced a prolongation of her marriage on herself with the "intentional act" of getting pregnant.

"You have created the situation by your own actions that delay your opportunity to dissolve your marriage," he said in the Nov. 4 hearing.

Getting pregnant with a friend from high school was unintentional, Hughes said, the result of failed birth control.

Regardless, said her lawyer, Terri Sloyer, the standard right to obtain a divorce after the 90-day waiting period should not be affected by a pregnancy.

"What are we telling women here?" she said. "We're not living in 15th Century England."

Carlos Hughes did not respond to requests for comment at the detention center in Montana. A reporter for the Stranger, a weekly newspaper in Seattle that first wrote about the case, met with Hughes last month. But he declined to discuss the controversy, saying: "I want to talk to Shawnna first."

[Vio&Juni]

I cannot understand the judge's reasoning!! Poor woman has to live a hell right now.

[RICHARD]

Saudi divorces wife at airport

A Saudi man divorced his wife after she insisted on waiting 13 hours at an airport for a flight that kept being delayed.

The Saudi daily al-Yaum said the couple waited from 9am to 11pm for the flight at Bisha airport in the south of the kingdom.

Relatives of the husband said the wife refused to return home and take another flight, causing the man to divorce her at the airport.

In Saudi Arabia, a man may receive a divorce simply upon request, while a woman must win a legal decision to separate.

------------------------------


:confused:

[lizzielou742]

Can she like, appeal or something????!!! CRAZY!!!