Washington state judge refuses to let pregnant woman divorce

AP ^ | 12/31/4

[SmithL]

SPOKANE -- 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 But the divorce papers failed to note that Hughes was pregnant, and when the judge found out, he rescinded the divorce.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.

[meisterbrewer]

I Love the Pic! May I copy? I'll blow it up and hang it over my wife's cat's food dishes just to drive em nuts.

[Tax-chick]

You too, honey! Drink up, mind the typso! (I used to typ for the Navy, long story. Also the Army Copser of Engineers, in my wasterd youth..

[Melas]

It might not be his baby, but in many states, it will automatically, legally, be his baby.

[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

please help yourself. I found it and borrowed it also. I laugh everytime I see it.

[Tax-chick]

Nice cat. James likes cats!

[atruelady]

Excellent analysis. It is more for the soon to be ex-husband.

[atruelady]

Actually, I was finishing typing my thought before I finished thinking it.

I was going to say:

Excellent analysis. Putting off the decision until paternity is determined is in favor of the soon to be ex, and in this case, even though he is a wife-beating pig, he should not be financially responsible for a child that is not his.

[therut]

The law is liek this in many states. I know it is in Arkansas. Actually the law was written to PROTECT pregnant women from their husbands abandoning them. Which is really why all our laws of marriage were writen in the first place. To protect women and children and property. Get it. I do. Still makes sense overall. Think about it.

[taxesareforever]

You can bet that if this was the judges' daughter he would have a WHOLE different outlook on the situation.

[longtermmemmory]

You really have to read between the lines on this case. This is very sloppy MSM reporting. Typical.
First there is the problem of her not listing the fact she was pregnant on the petition. Second a determination of paternity IS important. Since the husband is in jail, and she is claiming the boyfriend is the father a paternity test BEFORE the case is finalized is significant. (welfare, child support responsibility, paternity fraud, etc.)

She WILL get her divorce eventually. This case just goes to show lawyers need to do the legal work correctly the first time.

[DixieOklahoma]

Translation:

That poor guy is going to be stuck with paying child support for somebody else's kid.

[LolaMSins]

actually, he knows that.
1) he didn't DENY the divorce, he revoked it FOUR days after he issued dissolution
2) before he revoked it, he asked Shawnna Hughes to tell him why he shouldn't revoke it
3) this is what she wrote:"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."
4) this is what the judge HAS said:
"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." (see the morality dripping from that remark)
5) the judge is leaving office w/in a month.
6) the law he is invoking is a law that was SUPPOSED to protect the father as well as the mother and child...it was a law that was fully championed by fathers rights groups when it was adopted in 1975
7) court records show that Carlos, who has been incarcerated, with a "no contact" issuance, and could not possibly be the father of the baby.
The judge is under NO illusion about whether Carlos is the father or not. It is in court record that logically, he cannot be.

It's TIME for this hack of a judge to retire.