Remember the Spokane, WA judge who revoked a divorce because the woman was pregnant? Other judges have made similar rulings in WA state.
“No kidding. I was surprised,” said Gov. Chris Gregoire, who signed the bill yesterday … More below:
The law comes too late to help Shawnna Hughes, a Spokane woman “seeking to divorce her abusive husband.” The law takes effect July 23. Last month, Hughes gave birth to a baby girl. Hughes’ “appeal of the Spokane judge’s ruling is scheduled for oral arguments next month.”
Hughes appealed. Lawyers supporting her said Bastine misinterpreted a state law intended to standardize paternity and protect the rights of children and the state.
Hughes’ estranged husband, Carlos Hughes, is in jail in Montana awaiting trial on federal drug charges. Hughes has stated in court records that the father of her baby is her companion, Chauncey Jacques, who pleaded guilty to a gang-related shooting in 1998 that blinded an elderly man.
While the Spokane case brought attention to the law, Dickerson said judges across the state have made similar decisions in divorce cases.
Well, isn’t the special. I remember reading that article and ranting about it to my sister, it was just so appalling. I’m begining to think all these seemingly random acts/bills against women aren’t so random afterall but a concentrated effort by repug/christian whacko’s.
This is finally a small bright spot although it should never have been an issue in the first place, like one step forward, 5 steps back then 1/2 step forward again for women’s legal/civil rights.
that’s so funny … you made me laugh out loud! And I was stunned to read that other judges have made smiilar rulings. Good lord.
But what I recall (and I may be wrong) was that the petitioner in this case had failed to disclose the pregnancy in order to take advantage of a fast track process for divorce. THe delay came about from the Judge ordering the full process for the dicorce, wich is- ostensibly to protect the rights of the child and make sure that his financial interests are looked after. (I don’t know WA law, but in PA the mother’s husband is presumptively the father and child support awards can be made without making a positive showing of paternity.)
In this case there is no benefit to the kid- but in other circumstances- such as a skipping out husband with assets seeking the divorce, this change in law might reward irresponsible fathers.
And recall, that the only real price to this woman is the indignity (admittedly great) of being technically married to this guy- even if he wasn’t in jail she could get a restraining order even though they are married.
The cost to society at large may be grants of divorce that don’t properly take into account the financial needs of the pre-natal kid. If it turns out the kid has obvious special needs, the already overwhelmed custodial parent will have the problem of reopening the action for a new hearing on support.
The law seems to focus on women in violent relationships. From The Seattle Times (the quotes in the story are from the Seattle PI):
The judge’s interpretation “set very dangerous policies for women, particularly women in violent relationships,” said Terri Sloyer, Hughes’ lawyer. “You’re basically holding them hostage in relationships with abusers.”
Hughes appealed. Lawyers supporting her said Bastine misinterpreted a state law intended to standardize paternity and protect the rights of children and the state.
Hughes’ estranged husband, Carlos Hughes, is in jail in Montana awaiting trial on federal drug charges. Hughes has stated in court records that the father of her baby is her boyfriend, Chauncey Jacques, who pleaded guilty to a gang-related shooting in 1998 that blinded an elderly man.
While the Spokane case brought attention to the law, Dickerson said judges across the state have made similar decisions in divorce cases. The bill Gregoire signed adds two sentences to state law, clarifying that judges can’t use pregnancy as the sole basis for denying or delaying a divorce. Dickerson said the bill was crafted to avoid conflicts with the state’s child-support law.