Battered Pregnant Woman Denied Divorce

G

Gemtun

Guest
This really pisses me off!!!


Battered Pregnant Woman Denied Divorce

By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - When Shawnna Hughes discovered she was pregnant, her husband was in jail for beating her. She sought a divorce before his release, and he did not object - but a judge did.

Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine revoked Hughes' divorce until after she gives birth because her husband was not told she was going to have a child and paternity had not been established.

``It is the policy of the state that you cannot dissolve a marriage when one of the parties is pregnant,'' he said during oral arguments on the case last month.

Hughes, a 27-year-old medical assistant, is 7 months pregnant and says her estranged husband, Carlos Hughes, is not the father. She has appealed the decision.

``I'm devastated,'' she said, calling her husband ``very, very violent.''

Carlos Hughes is in jail in Montana awaiting trial on federal drug charges and Bastine noted that Shawnna Hughes has a restraining order that prevents her husband from contacting her, even if they remain married. But women's advocates worry the ruling sets an unsettling precedent.

``This is a woman in domestic violence asking to get out of the relationship,'' said Hughes' attorney, Terri Sloyer. ``We're telling abusers that if you can get her pregnant you can keep her married to you.''

Lawyers supporting Hughes' appeal said Bastine is misinterpreting a state law intended to standardize paternity and protect the rights of children and the state.

``No provision in state law authorizes a judge to decline to issue a divorce because the woman is pregnant,'' said the American Civil Liberties Union's Doug Honig. ``Women should be able to choose for themselves when they want to end a marriage. That's especially important for women in abusive relationships.''

But Bastine, who retired on Friday, said the issue is more complex. Attorneys for Shawnna Hughes did not immediately disclose that she was pregnant in the midst of the divorce proceedings. Under state law, an ex-husband is presumed to be the father of any child born up to 300 days after a divorce and can be liable for child support, Bastine said.

``You needed to serve him and give him notice that his rights as a father or as a non-father were being determined in that matter. It wasn't done,'' the judge said.

Further muddying the waters is Shawnna Hughes' reliance on public assistance. The state of Washington objected to the divorce because it might leave the state unable to identify a father and pursue him for repayment of welfare money used to support the child.

Bastine agreed to revoke the divorce until paternity is scientifically established after the child's birth, expected in mid-March.

``It's not forcing a woman to live with a batterer,'' he said.

Hughes, a vivacious mother of two young sons by Carlos Hughes, said they married in 1998 and he began to beat her after she became pregnant with their older son.

She says she became romantically involved with a childhood friend, Chauncey Jacques, and that he is the father. Jacques is now in the Spokane County Jail awaiting trial on a federal drug charge.

In court documents, Hughes pleaded with Bastine for the divorce, saying that she wanted to marry the father of her child, and that Carlos Hughes ``has brought significant physical harm to me over the years.''

The Northwest Women's Law Center in Seattle and the ACLU plan to file briefs with the state Court of Appeals on Hughes' behalf. They said similar cases have cropped up in Washington before.

Lisa Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, said Bastine's decision would create a separate class of women who cannot divorce while pregnant, a time when battered women often face even more attacks from their partners.

``So, if you have a pregnant woman who wants to get away from her batterer, do you want to make it harder for her?'' Stone said.
 
Welcome to the retarded world of men.

It is pure bullshit. Once men abuses women, women have to leave immediately because the cycle will be repeat.
 
That's BS!!!

What do they expect? The mother and the child to get killed by this husband, when they know he was abusing her??

That's totally BS!! I'm sorry , I totally disagree with this, this woman has the right to get a divorce whether or not she's pregnant...The law should protect the woman and the unborn child's life from being in danger by this abusive husband , not just cause she is freaking pregnant!! :pissed:
 
^Angel^ said:
That's BS!!!

What do they expect? The mother and the child to get killed by this husband, when they know he was abusing her??

That's totally BS!! I'm sorry , I totally disagree with this, this woman has the right to get a divorce whether or not she's pregnant...The law should protect the woman and the unborn child's life from being in danger by this abusive husband , not just cause she is freaking pregnant!! :pissed:

I agree, Angel
 
Didnt you notice something? BOTH her hubby AND lover are in jail... whatta world.
 
Magatsu said:
Welcome to the retarded world of men.

It is pure bullshit. Once men abuses women, women have to leave immediately because the cycle will be repeat.


:werd: That is so messed up! How many times they had slapped, kicked, choked women and would likely keep repeating, Women have to get away from Abusive men, Their lives are at stake and putting a child in the middle is even worse.
 
Meg said:
This really pisses me off!!!


Battered Pregnant Woman Denied Divorce

By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS
SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) - When Shawnna Hughes discovered she was pregnant, her husband was in jail for beating her. She sought a divorce before his release, and he did not object - but a judge did.

Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine revoked Hughes' divorce until after she gives birth because her husband was not told she was going to have a child and paternity had not been established.

``It is the policy of the state that you cannot dissolve a marriage when one of the parties is pregnant,'' he said during oral arguments on the case last month.

Hughes, a 27-year-old medical assistant, is 7 months pregnant and says her estranged husband, Carlos Hughes, is not the father. She has appealed the decision.

``I'm devastated,'' she said, calling her husband ``very, very violent.''

Carlos Hughes is in jail in Montana awaiting trial on federal drug charges and Bastine noted that Shawnna Hughes has a restraining order that prevents her husband from contacting her, even if they remain married. But women's advocates worry the ruling sets an unsettling precedent.

``This is a woman in domestic violence asking to get out of the relationship,'' said Hughes' attorney, Terri Sloyer. ``We're telling abusers that if you can get her pregnant you can keep her married to you.''

Lawyers supporting Hughes' appeal said Bastine is misinterpreting a state law intended to standardize paternity and protect the rights of children and the state.

``No provision in state law authorizes a judge to decline to issue a divorce because the woman is pregnant,'' said the American Civil Liberties Union's Doug Honig. ``Women should be able to choose for themselves when they want to end a marriage. That's especially important for women in abusive relationships.''

But Bastine, who retired on Friday, said the issue is more complex. Attorneys for Shawnna Hughes did not immediately disclose that she was pregnant in the midst of the divorce proceedings. Under state law, an ex-husband is presumed to be the father of any child born up to 300 days after a divorce and can be liable for child support, Bastine said.

``You needed to serve him and give him notice that his rights as a father or as a non-father were being determined in that matter. It wasn't done,'' the judge said.

Further muddying the waters is Shawnna Hughes' reliance on public assistance. The state of Washington objected to the divorce because it might leave the state unable to identify a father and pursue him for repayment of welfare money used to support the child.

Bastine agreed to revoke the divorce until paternity is scientifically established after the child's birth, expected in mid-March.

``It's not forcing a woman to live with a batterer,'' he said.

Hughes, a vivacious mother of two young sons by Carlos Hughes, said they married in 1998 and he began to beat her after she became pregnant with their older son.

She says she became romantically involved with a childhood friend, Chauncey Jacques, and that he is the father. Jacques is now in the Spokane County Jail awaiting trial on a federal drug charge.

In court documents, Hughes pleaded with Bastine for the divorce, saying that she wanted to marry the father of her child, and that Carlos Hughes ``has brought significant physical harm to me over the years.''

The Northwest Women's Law Center in Seattle and the ACLU plan to file briefs with the state Court of Appeals on Hughes' behalf. They said similar cases have cropped up in Washington before.

Lisa Stone, executive director of the Northwest Women's Law Center, said Bastine's decision would create a separate class of women who cannot divorce while pregnant, a time when battered women often face even more attacks from their partners.

``So, if you have a pregnant woman who wants to get away from her batterer, do you want to make it harder for her?'' Stone said.

:wtf: :werd: to what you said, Meg!

This is TOTAL AND COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!! Doesn't that idiot judge have a CLUE? That husband is gonna beat the living crap out of that woman, and probably hurt the baby, too!!! Could even go as far as murder! Oh, oh!! This just ..... GRRRRR!!!!!!!! :smash:
 
Magatsu said:
Welcome to the retarded world of men.

It is pure bullshit. Once men abuses women, women have to leave immediately because the cycle will be repeat.

:werd: And, I don't think the woman should wait around to be struck. It's common knowledge that a man will usually begin verbally and emotionally abusing before they hit, so the min, he says something to her that puts her down or degrades her, she should OUT OF THERE!
 
This is really unusually bizarre whereas a piece of 'red-tape' is more relevant and important than honoring her appeal for a divorce and protecting this woman from further violent behaviour from her husband who is presently in jail awaiting trial on drug charges...After all, not only is the courts/judges are to find justice but to also protect those who need to be protected from certain violent perpetrators above any rulings or laws!

"Bastine agreed to revoke the divorce until paternity is scientifically established after the child's birth, expected in mid-March." The judge may have every reasoning or intent for delaying the divorce in terms of paternal issues, etc...BUT>>>``It's not forcing a woman to live with a batterer,'' he said. <<Saying this...why on God's earth didn't this judge go any further by imposing safeguards (even if there IS a restraining order in place)...perhaps ordering the soon-to-be ex behind bars UNTIL after the birth...solidifying and preventing any chances for renewed abusings!!!

Besides being miffed about this recent outcome of this case...I'm even more startled with the fact like DreamDeaf pointed out that both husband and her lover are currently in jail awaiting drug charges...but more so am dismayed to the fact that this woman is pregnant and claiming that the 'lover' is the father of the unborn child...what kind of woman is this? What does she see in this 'man/lover' who is supposedly the father of this child? A man who is currently charged in relation to drugs--even if he isn't found guilty of the charges currently pending against him...what kind of role model will this be for the child? This really 'gets me a bit boiling here' and makes me want to steer this lady into a whole new direction and well-being that would best serve for the interests of the unborn child! Well...that being said and off my chest...time to 'cool' down and say a few *prayers*....
 
BOTH her hubby AND lover are in jail... whatta world.
Oh lord.....my mom sees mothers like this ALL the time! Mothers whose judgement is so bad they have the worst relationship skills in the world and end up with shitty significent others. I am not saying ALL battered wives are like that, but there just seem to be a lot of them in the lower end of the economic spectrum.
 
Battered Women Need Help

This story POs me. The local Child Protective Services got into trouble last year when 9 kids were killed or starved by parents. After last kid died, the governor sent in more help for CPS office.

IMHO, the courts and CPS need to help battered women and their children more than they need to help the A**H***s who are making their lives miserable. If the kids have a chance to grow up, they are more at risk to follow the example of what they saw earlier.
 
Something I would like to point out that this is for a divorce only. The judge didn't order the woman to live with him....he just wouldn't sign the divorce decree. The law states that divorces cannot be granted if the woman is pregnant, and the judge is following the law. He didn't state that she had to live with him or needed to be with him. Once she has the baby, the divorce can be granted.

With that said, I'd like to point out that this case really bothers me and I'm not defending the actions. As far as I'm concerned, the husband should be locked up for a long, long time. Domestic Violence is the one thing that really gets under my skin and I'd like to see more done against abusive spouses.
 
It was appalling and upsetting reading about that happening. :mad: That's not helping the battered wife at all!
 
Magatsu said:
Welcome to the retarded world of men.

It is pure bullshit. Once men abuses women, women have to leave immediately because the cycle will be repeat.

:werd: Those situation remind me of my mother.
 
^Angel^ said:
That's BS!!!

What do they expect? The mother and the child to get killed by this husband, when they know he was abusing her??

That's totally BS!! I'm sorry , I totally disagree with this, this woman has the right to get a divorce whether or not she's pregnant...The law should protect the woman and the unborn child's life from being in danger by this abusive husband , not just cause she is freaking pregnant!! :pissed:

Yes, I'm agree.

That stupid law system!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
DreamDeaf said:
Didnt you notice something? BOTH her hubby AND lover are in jail... whatta world.

Good Point!!!

***shake the head sigh***

I would get away from 2 men for my children's sake when I were her!
 
Roadrunner said:
This is really unusually bizarre whereas a piece of 'red-tape' is more relevant and important than honoring her appeal for a divorce and protecting this woman from further violent behaviour from her husband who is presently in jail awaiting trial on drug charges...After all, not only is the courts/judges are to find justice but to also protect those who need to be protected from certain violent perpetrators above any rulings or laws!

"Bastine agreed to revoke the divorce until paternity is scientifically established after the child's birth, expected in mid-March." The judge may have every reasoning or intent for delaying the divorce in terms of paternal issues, etc...BUT>>>``It's not forcing a woman to live with a batterer,'' he said. <<Saying this...why on God's earth didn't this judge go any further by imposing safeguards (even if there IS a restraining order in place)...perhaps ordering the soon-to-be ex behind bars UNTIL after the birth...solidifying and preventing any chances for renewed abusings!!!

Besides being miffed about this recent outcome of this case...I'm even more startled with the fact like DreamDeaf pointed out that both husband and her lover are currently in jail awaiting drug charges...but more so am dismayed to the fact that this woman is pregnant and claiming that the 'lover' is the father of the unborn child...what kind of woman is this? What does she see in this 'man/lover' who is supposedly the father of this child? A man who is currently charged in relation to drugs--even if he isn't found guilty of the charges currently pending against him...what kind of role model will this be for the child? This really 'gets me a bit boiling here' and makes me want to steer this lady into a whole new direction and well-being that would best serve for the interests of the unborn child! Well...that being said and off my chest...time to 'cool' down and say a few *prayers*....

:gpost: :werd:

That's what I responsed DD's last post.

I had the feeling that something is not okay with pregnant lady but I dont know what.

I would forget my estrangle husband & lover to start fresh life with children when I were her.
 
Taylor said:
Something I would like to point out that this is for a divorce only. The judge didn't order the woman to live with him....he just wouldn't sign the divorce decree. The law states that divorces cannot be granted if the woman is pregnant, and the judge is following the law. He didn't state that she had to live with him or needed to be with him. Once she has the baby, the divorce can be granted.

With that said, I'd like to point out that this case really bothers me and I'm not defending the actions. As far as I'm concerned, the husband should be locked up for a long, long time. Domestic Violence is the one thing that really gets under my skin and I'd like to see more done against abusive spouses.

Yes, I know that the court didnt ask her to live with her estrangle husband but I'm disagree with that law system because they should protect battered women against volience husbands.

I think they should change that law system to protect battered women or men more.
 
You angry people are all missing the REASON behind the decision.

This woman has NOT proven who the father is. The state will not grant divorce UNTIL the child's paternity test is finished. Why? Because:

a) Child Support payments
b) The woman HERSELF is on welfare
c) The man she CLAIMS is the father is also in jail

There is no issue whether or not her current husband is a "batterer." The issue is of YOU CANNOT USE DIVORCE TO GET MONEY FROM THE WRONG FATHER!

In the case of her already born children, paternity is already established. In the case of the unborn child, the state has to assume that the child is the husbands -- but it allegedly is not in this case. Hey, that means this woman committed adultery, which may or may not be a crime in WA. What does that mean? The state HAS TO KNOW FOR SURE before they finalize the divorce.

So, it looks like justice was done to me, people.
 
Back
Top