Posted on 12/31/2004 7:51:39 PM PST by 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 But the divorce papers failed to note that Hughes was pregnant, and when the judge found out, he rescinded the divorce.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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Wha?
Well, hell. If we're just going to go with what the state law says, why do we even need judges?
Well, duh ... law? Count up the votes? Who says? Democrat wins! Which law, when?
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The reason the judge rescinded the divorce is so the child will not be illegitimate.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.
Yup. What you said.
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??
"It's not her husbands baby...it still won't have his name and is illegitimate."
How do you know that? More importantly, how does the court know that?
The problem here is that the child is not mentioned in the divorce papers. Arrangements have to be made in the divorce proceedings for custody, etc. of the child.
Under Washington state law, the default position is that the husband is presumed to be the father of any child born during the marriage and up to 300 days afterward. If the child is not his, he has to actively contest it.
So under the law, the child is presumed to be fathered by the husband and the divorce papers have to note the existence of the child.
Washington state law is clear that a judge has the authority to do this when an issue such as child custody is not resolved, but it just doesn't happen that often.
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.
This judge is going to rule that since she was married, her husband must now provide child support.
Unfortunately, you got me. Navy lawyer, in fact. I do family law every day, and man is it getting tedious.
Happy New Year!
:o)
Happy New Year, Meisterbrewer
and your probably right about the post.
K4
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.