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 But the divorce papers failed to note that Hughes was pregnant, and when the judge found out, he rescinded the divorce.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.
Shooot, man ... it's New Year's Eve and you expect us to make SENSE? (You know how many backspaces that took?) You must be a lawyer, or livin in a far=out toime xone.
HappyNewYear, andy your probably right about hese whole shmear.
:o)
Happy New Year, Meisterbrewer
and your probably right about the post.
K4
Excellent analysis. It is more for the soon to be ex-husband.
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.