Wha?
Well, hell. If we're just going to go with what the state law says, why do we even need judges?
This is horrible.
I have no sympathy for wife abusers.
But EVERYBODY is going to suffer because of this.
The reason the judge rescinded the divorce is so the child will not be illegitimate.
But it is NOT HER HUSBAND'S BABY.
It is these laws that make ex-husbands have to pay child support for babies that are not theirs, because their wives cheated on them.
I understand why these laws exist and why husbands should at one time have to support the children of their wives.
But times have changed, it is a whole new ballgame.
She doesn't want to be married to him. He doesn't want to be married to her. They should not be forced to stay married just so a child that IS NOT HIS will have to bear his name and he will have to be responsible.
It's not her husbands baby...it still won't have his name and is illegitimate.
This is ridiculous.
BUT . . . it is not his kid.
I can't remeber the case name but the US Supreme Court made it illegal for a state to classify a child as illegitimate based on the marital state of the mother.
Hey Judge .. did ya ever think that maybe if she was able to divorce this wife beater ... that she would be free to married the babies father??
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 But the divorce papers failed to note that Hughes was pregnant, and when the judge found out, he rescinded the divorce.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. [...] 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.
What this means is this - if the judge had granted the divorce, the child would have been designated as the child of the ex-husband by Washington law, since she was pregnant at the time of the divorce. But, since he denied the divorce, arguing that "the paternity of the child needs to be determined before a divorce can be finalized," he is making the mother have a DNA test to PROVE that it is not the child of the soon-to-be ex-husband, meaning he won't have to pay child support.
That's why the mother is torqued. She wanted a new husband AND child support from the old one.
This judge is going to rule that since she was married, her husband must now provide child support.
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.
You can bet that if this was the judges' daughter he would have a WHOLE different outlook on the situation.
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.