Judge Stops Pregnant Woman From Divorcing Abuser - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-10-2005, 05:25 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,981
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Judge Stops Pregnant Woman From Divorcing Abuser

By Sam Howe Verhovek, Los Angeles Times | January 10, 2005

SEATTLE -- The day she was granted a divorce from her abusive husband, Shawnna J. Hughes said, was "the happiest day of my life." But barely a week later, the 27-year-old medical assistant was back before a judge, who rescinded the order after learning Hughes was pregnant by another man.

"Not only is it the policy of this court, it is the policy of the state that you cannot dissolve a marriage when one of the parties is pregnant," Superior Court Judge Paul A. Bastine told Hughes on Nov. 4.

The ruling has provoked outrage among women's rights groups and provided ample fodder for local talk-radio hosts and newspaper columnists.

Analysts said there was no blanket prohibition in the laws of this or any other state against pregnant women getting divorced; several Seattle-area family law practitioners said they had obtained divorces for pregnant clients.

The law states that any Washington resident who files for a no-fault divorce can get one. Hughes's husband did not respond to her petition, and a divorce was granted. But Bastine said the divorce was invalid because Hughes did not learn she was pregnant until after the papers were served, so her husband was not aware of all the facts.

Hughes is appealing Bastine's decision.

The judge said in a telephone interview that the case involved a thicket of other legal issues -- especially because Hughes was receiving public-aid benefits, so the state had an interest in determining paternity.

But several legal scholars questioned his reasoning, saying the law provided for paternity issues to be settled separately from a divorce. In Washington, a child born as many as 300 days after a divorce is legally presumed to have been fathered by the former husband unless a paternity test proves otherwise. Hughes said she and the man with whom she became pregnant planned to have such a test after the birth.

"I cannot think of any policy that would require this woman to stay married to a person who was in prison for abusing her," said Carol Bruch, a law professor at the University of California, Davis.

In any event, Hughes, who lives in Spokane and is due to give birth in March, remains married to her abuser -- a situation she describes as psychologically devastating. She said her six-year union with Carlos Hughes was "more like a prison than a marriage."

When she got pregnant in June, Hughes said, her estranged husband was serving time for domestic assault. She said she has had no contact with Carlos Hughes, who recently was transferred to a jail in Montana to await trial on federal drug charges, for two years.

But, she said, her husband called her grandmother from the jail and told her that he was taking the pregnancy as "a sign from God" that the couple should be together. "It made my stomach turn," Shawnna Hughes said.

Although there is a restraining order preventing Carlos Hughes from initiating any contact, Shawnna Hughes said she was terrified by the prospect of him coming back.

She has custody of their two boys, ages 5 and 3.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Northwest Women's Law Center, an advocacy group in Seattle, have joined in Shawnna Hughes's appeal. If the ruling is upheld, they say, it not only amounts to discrimination, but also could establish a perverse incentive for an abusive husband to get his wife pregnant in order to force her to stay married.

And it could prompt some women to terminate their pregnancies to obtain a divorce, critics say.

"You can't use a woman's status as a pregnant person to discriminate against her," said Lisa Stone, executive director of the women's law center. "You simply can't say, well, everyone else in the state is entitled to get a divorce in a timely fashion, except this one group of people."

Further roiling the case, Bastine told Shawnna Hughes that she had forced a prolongation of her marriage on herself with the "intentional act" of getting pregnant.

"You have created the situation by your own actions that delay your opportunity to dissolve your marriage," he said in the Nov. 4 hearing.

Getting pregnant with a friend from her high school days was unintentional, Hughes said, the result of failed birth control.

Regardless, said her lawyer, Terri Sloyer, the standard right to obtain a divorce after the 90-day waiting period should not be affected by a pregnancy.

"What are we telling women here?" Sloyer said. "We're not living in 15th-century England."
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 05:30 AM   #2
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:40 AM
Good lord. Why does that law need to be uphelp when it isn't even the inmate's baby?
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 05:36 AM   #3
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,671
Local Time: 07:40 AM
This makes perfectly logical sense.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 01-10-2005, 05:36 AM   #4
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 04:40 PM
what a stupid law
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 06:11 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:40 AM
A technicality turned into a media circus.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 06:32 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 01:40 PM
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 06:48 AM   #7
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 07:40 AM
I think I saw this on Jerry Springer.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 09:44 AM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:40 PM
This is terrible. Shame on that stupid judge!
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 10:31 AM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by all_i_want
what a stupid law
i think it only exist in the judge's head
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 01:31 PM   #10
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 08:40 AM
One of those fringe judicial types infringing his views on us.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 01:59 PM   #11
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
dandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: styrofoam peanut commune
Posts: 4,310
Local Time: 10:40 AM
Re: Judge Stops Pregnant Woman From Divorcing Abuser

Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
"Not only is it the policy of this court, it is the policy of the state that you cannot dissolve a marriage when one of the parties is pregnant," Superior Court Judge Paul A. Bastine told Hughes on Nov. 4....

Further roiling the case, Bastine told Shawnna Hughes that she had forced a prolongation of her marriage on herself with the "intentional act" of getting pregnant.

"You have created the situation by your own actions that delay your opportunity to dissolve your marriage," he said in the Nov. 4 hearing.



this guy is a mysogynyst and an embarrassment to the bench.
__________________
dandy is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 03:23 PM   #12
Refugee
 
all_i_want's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,180
Local Time: 04:40 PM
stupid judge
__________________
all_i_want is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 03:38 PM   #13
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:40 AM
I think this boils down to one technicality (that may or may not exist): must a petitioner in a divorce case inform the other spouse of a pregnancy before the petition is granted?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 04:30 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,981
Local Time: 08:40 AM
Don't other concerns ever override legal techicalities?

If judges have the power to overturn verdicts, couldn't they wield some other power and choose compassion and decency over technicalities?

I agree, I think it's misogynist, and the judge might be as well. He wouldn't be the first and only one either
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 01-10-2005, 07:19 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 09:40 AM
Quote:
"Not only is it the policy of this court, it is the policy of the state that you cannot dissolve a marriage when one of the parties is pregnant," Superior Court Judge Paul A. Bastine told Hughes on Nov. 4.
Hmmm... "when one of the parties is pregnant?" How well do you think this judge absorbed law school, when he hasn't even absorbed basic biology (as something tells me he's not an advocate of gay marriages)?
__________________

__________________
indra is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com