Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Battered Pregnant Woman Denied Divorce

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
hyphenate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:27 PM
Original message
Battered Pregnant Woman Denied Divorce
Battered Pregnant Woman Denied Divorce
By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS
Associated Press Writer

SPOKANE, Wash. - 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 now jailed in Montana 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.

<snip>

The rest of the article:

http://kevxml2a.verizon.net/_1_2PUDTO10GMWS8F_11737847_vzn.isp/apnws/story.htm?kcfg=apart&sin=D87GOBCO0&qcat=usnews&ran=30534&passqi=&feed=ap&top=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AlbizuX Donating Member (322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. "when one of the parties is pregnant"
as if the women get an equal chance to hold their husbands accountable to this rule!

This is pure, anti-women, traditional values stuff.

I don't like this judge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikepallas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
2. I've seen this story a couple times here--no offense--it makes me sick
and want to bitch slap this judge or at the very least give him a piece of my mind-- I know I shouldn't do that I need the brain as is--or at the very least force that judge into that situation so he knows what that poor woman is going thru.


Hey that would be interesting:think: !!! Take some of these insensative SOB--politicians, Judges, President--you know who I'm thinking of and kind of Quantum Leap them into the lives they make suffer.

Oh well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Liberal Veteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 03:48 PM
Response to Original message
3. Hey abusers! Keep your wife knocked up and she can't divorce you!
How fucking 19th century is this law?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PowerToThePeople Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. SHe picks the winners....
"Carlos Hughes is now jailed in Montana"

"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."

This from my home town.. :-(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 05:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is actually related to the other thread on paternal parentage tests..
... and in a way that speaks against the ones there who wanted to be on the mom's side...

As I understand it, one thing that the judge used in reaching his decision was the notion that there was a *presumption* that the kid was the jailed wifebeater's. Because of that presumption, the "father" has an interest in the child, and yadayadayada...

IIRC, the judge said that once the baby was born, the parentage could be verified, and then she could seek a divorce (or something similar to that).

Relevance to the other thread. This is a situation where the ability to have testing done soley on the word of ONE parent, either with or with the knowledge of the other, could conceivably be helpful to the mother.

Yet in the other thread, it was precisely the mother-supporters that were so trenchantly against un-mother-approved testing.

Moral (for me at least): Think long and hard about unintended consequences....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalhistorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. And why is it always the WOMAN who
has to "think long and hard about unintended consequences", why are men rarely held to the same level of accountability for their choices and decisions as women always are?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
put out Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Hey, here's an idea!
If a married man has sex with another woman, the woman becomes pregnant, and then he seeks divorce...

We could deny the divorce because the wife might be able to lay claim to his baby after the baby is born! Super, right?

Or, maybe not...seems kinda fair to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChairOne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Hm. I think you and I are talking about different things... /eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-09-05 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. So true
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 05:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC