Skip to comments.
Washington state judge refuses to let pregnant woman divorce
AP ^
| 12/31/4
Posted on 12/31/2004 7:51:39 PM PST by SmithL
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-32 last
To: K4Harty
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.
To: meisterbrewer
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..
22
posted on
12/31/2004 8:42:00 PM PST
by
Tax-chick
(To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just.)
To: SouthernFreebird
It might not be his baby, but in many states, it will automatically, legally, be his baby.
23
posted on
12/31/2004 8:42:42 PM PST
by
Melas
To: meisterbrewer
please help yourself. I found it and borrowed it also. I laugh everytime I see it.
24
posted on
12/31/2004 8:45:42 PM PST
by
IllumiNaughtyByNature
(Never underestimate the power of a cacophony of Cowbells played in unison...It shocks the mind.)
To: K4Harty
Nice cat. James likes cats!
25
posted on
12/31/2004 8:47:17 PM PST
by
Tax-chick
(To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just.)
To: meisterbrewer
Excellent analysis. It is more for the soon to be ex-husband.
To: meisterbrewer
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.
To: SmithL
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.
28
posted on
12/31/2004 9:51:13 PM PST
by
therut
To: SmithL
You can bet that if this was the judges' daughter he would have a WHOLE different outlook on the situation.
To: All
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.
To: Tax-chick
Translation:
That poor guy is going to be stuck with paying child support for somebody else's kid.
31
posted on
01/01/2005 12:54:01 AM PST
by
DixieOklahoma
(Alabama - in 2006 vote ROY MOORE governor! - don't let us down!)
To: Mo1; All
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.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-32 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson