home

Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman

A judge in Washington state has refused to grant a divorce to a pregnant woman. What's even more absurd about the judge's ruling is that she left her husband two years ago after he went to jail for beating her. The father of the child is her current boyfriend, who she wants to marry.

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 But the divorce papers failed to note that Hughes was pregnant, and when the judge found out, he rescinded the divorce.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.

Women are allowed to divorce even under Sharia law, which is the strictest law we can think of. What's wrong with this Judge?

< Happy New Year and Open Thread | Rehnquist: Protect Our Judges >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 03:01:07 AM EST
    Is Sharia even really a (set of) laws in the American sense or is it more like English Common Law? -C

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 03:20:40 AM EST
    I looked at the wikipedia entry for this and it does appear to be a combination of written and precedent-based law, but I can't imagine how the judge managed to arrive at this intrepretation based on the facts in front of him. As far as to what this judge was a thinking, you're guess is a good as mine. "Judicial activism" indeed.

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 04:32:32 AM EST
    Is there someting wrong with stating this guy's name (I assume it's a guy)? An email campaign or some action should be taken against some of these nut-case judges. Accountability is lacking - but I guess that's the New Standard.

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 06:28:07 AM EST
    As a gay man relegated to second class citizenship thanks to marriage discrimination, I can help but chuckle at this one. Now there's a judge who really knows how to defend marriage. If we see more of this, maybe more hets will get the idea that it's not such a good idea for the government to be getting into the business of saying who can or can't marry and who has to stay married.

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 08:11:28 AM EST
    More information here. Apparently some judges feel there is a conflict in divorce and parenting laws. It's a weird situation. MKK

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 09:02:45 AM EST
    The east side of Washington State is a little bizarre. I applaud them over the hill for their tolerance of proto-christian nutcases. I am not sure we need to elevate said nutcases to the bench however.

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 10:24:23 AM EST
    TL, I'm not sure why you're assuming such a sinister motivation behind the judge's ruling. The way I read it, he's simply saying paternity needs to be established. Surely if it turned out the child was of the son of the father (doesn't sound likely in this case), you'd consider that relevant to the divorce ruling; custody and child support should weigh this fact. I can think of better (er... worse I suppose) laws that can more justly be compared to fatawas. Was it a slow morning for news?

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:22:46 AM EST
    Scott, I wondered if the issue for the judge was that the petition for dissolution (as we call it here in Warshington) failed to include an important and relevant fact - pregnancy. But then the judge did not cite insufficiency of the petition as the reason for not granting, s/he apparently went into the potential impact of illegitimacy. As far as I know in the statutes of WA state for disso, there is no basis for this consideration. We are a no fault state.

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 11:28:16 AM EST
    Welcome to More Moral Judiciary. The current administration and the extreme religious right it represents I am sure approve of this. I understand that many extremists in are working at the state and local level to make divorce more difficult to obtain. See this article from a NOW newsletter in 1997 link . It's us liberals who must wake up and realize the extremists are already hard at work. [Links must be in html format, we fixed this one, future ones will be deleted]

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#10)
    by wishful on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 12:18:07 PM EST
    If a conception (improperly used as a noun here) is a person, then there is no legitimacy issue. The child legally is the child of the married parents, regardless of biological parenthood. This new born-againism can sure change things, no?

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 01:25:31 PM EST
    Agree, Wishful. That crossed my mind also. Child was conceived while mother was married. I think that makes the child legitimate (for those among us who think any child can be illegitimate). Does it matter if the mother's husband was in jail and some other man is the biological father of the child is someone else? It doesn't to me. None of my business.

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Jan 01, 2005 at 03:52:15 PM EST
    THE POINT HERE is for the State to collect child-support. The husband is legaly liable for the support of the child [even if DNA proves he is not the father]. It seems to me that the judge simply wants a guy [any guy] to foot the bill [or, if he can't pay to punish him].

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:00:13 AM EST
    This story first appeared in The Stranger on Dec. 23. Judge' name: Paul Bastine.

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 08:08:10 AM EST
    You are wrong about the child support issue, no name. Marital status has no impact on the ability of the state support enforcement process in Washington State.

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 10:01:10 AM EST
    I don't know, any child that lives and breathes is legitimate to me. This judge might fit in better in the UAE or Saudi Arabia, then he can flog or stone the woman.

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:13:23 PM EST
    Under the law in some states, the father of any child born to his wife is presumed to be her husband, which would make him legally responsible for supporting the offspring of another man. Where's the justice in that??

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 09:20:46 PM EST
    Hey, that's called family values, Paul!

    Re: Judge Says No Divorce for Pregnant Woman (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 05, 2005 at 01:42:15 AM EST
    This is a very interesting quote from the judge. It's almost as if he's punishing this woman for committing adultery. "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." http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/aplocal_story.asp?category=6420&slug=WA%20Divorce%20Denied