Pregnant woman forced to stay married to her abuser.

[Cerridwen]

http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature.html

Shawnna Hughes divorced her abusive husband. But four days later a judge revoked her divorce because Shawnna Hughes was pregnant-- and pregnant women in Washington, according to this judge, can't get divorced.

[sui generis]

1. Holey Moley

What if you're pregnant and living with a guy who is also the father.

Does Washington state law force you to marry? If not, what's the difference?

Some lawmakers and judges are pretty dang stupid.

[Maddy McCall]

2. I went through that.

I had to wait until after I had my son for the divorce to be finalized. Same situation...was married to an abuser.

This is a law that should be changed on the FEDERAL level.

[Canadian Socialist]

4. I don't understand

Are you saying that if you are "married" and are pregnant you can't get divorced? That makes no sense to me. So, it seems, that procreating is THE reason to get married? Am I jumping to conclusions, or does that mean that the only reason TO be married is because of present and possible children? I'm soooo confused!

So, scenario, I'm not married and pregnant, does that mean the opposite? I can't get married? /sarcasm off

[Maddy McCall]

13. Yes, that is what I am saying.

Because the judge won't finalize the divorce until child support and custody issues are resolved. I guess they hope you'll stay married for the "good of the child," even if it means being beaten black and blue in the process.

[renaissanceguy]

22. It makes perfect sense.

It's not about procreation. It's about going back to the days of male dominance/female submissiveness. The fundies want women in the home, not in the workplace. And yes, fundie women, too, believe that a woman's place is in the home. Scary, huh?

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14745919

[Sanity Claws]

3. There may be more to this

I'm an attorney in Washington and all issues regarding the children must be taken care in the dissolution (divorce) decree. My guess is that the decree failed to take care of child support and custody issues and thus was invalid. So she does not have to stay married to him -- they must take care of these outstanding issues before the decree can be entered.

[Cerridwen]

7. When you read the article, you'll see that what you wrote is

part of the issue, but that the 90 day period has also passed. It may have been a goof; but I've got some serious issues about putting child support and custody over physical safety.

But then, I am not a lawyer.

There has got to be a better way to handle these issues.

edited to add: I am not a lawyer means I wasn't looking at it from a technical standpoint.

[Sanity Claws]

8. Safety issues

She may still be married to him but she does not have to live him. In fact, requiring a spouse to pay maintenance (alimony) while the proceeding is going on is quite common. Those things should help relieve the safety concerns.

[Cerridwen]

11. Thanks for the information about procedure.

'Preciate it.

[Canadian Socialist]

12. How

Is he supposed to support them while he is in gaol? And after, can he get a job? There seems to be limits to what the court can do. Can they MAKE him support her and the children? And, if so, how? Not trying to be bother, but it seems as if the judicial system in the States hasn't thought through this enough. Maybe a social insurance plan to help out stay-at-home mothers to cope and succeed?

edit to add: I don't think there is a programme in Canada other than Employment Insurance to help women out of this dilemma.

[Sanity Claws]

15. I read the article after posting

and saw that the guy was in jail (gaol for our Canadian friends). A decree ordering him to pay child support will be entered, regardless of whether or not he has income. If he doesn't have income, income will be imputed to him and the support will be based on that. If he doesn't pay, the amount he owes will continue to accumulate. I know you can't get blood from a turnip but he might come into money some day.

[Maria Celeste]

16. Finally a rational answer

Requiring that the divorce not be final until open/outstanding issues are addressed is common sense & best practice. I tire of news/web/blog stories that are really written to inflame and not convey what is really happening. This one may be yet another of those.

To those concerned about the abuse, I can assure you from personal experience that the paper status of the relationship means nothing. She doe not have to take him in or any of that. She should have a protective order in force which he will either follow or not.

While it is somewhat controversial here, I believe that all people in this situation (in fear of an abusive person under a restraining order) should have a cell phone and a gun and be proficient with both. Hopefully they will need to use neither, but there is no substitute and no delay is tolerable if their use is required.

Hopefully she has legal help as she goes through this on a number of issues including paternity of the child she is expecting.

[Pithlet]

17. Paper status DOES matter.

As long as he's legally married to her, he has certain rights and privileges that non-spouses do not. As long as they're legally married, there are all sorts of legal issues binding them. If someone wants a marriage dissolved, matters like pregnancy should NOT factor into it. Those issues can be resolved after the baby is born, even if the divorce has already been finalized. After all, those things can be hashed out even if the couple was NEVER married. What's the difference?

Just because a woman is pregnant doesn't mean she should be stripped of certain legal rights that non-pregnant women have. Laws like the one that prevents a pregnant woman from divorcing her husband are only a holdover from the days when notions of marriage and a woman's role in it were a lot different, and it is time to strike them from the books.

[Maria Celeste]

19. I did not say she should not be allowed to get divorced

I concurred with the prior post, that the divorce decree needs to address all open issues. Reworking that to accommodate that is appropriate. Reopening issues after the divorce decree is harder than most people know and rarely works out as well. That is not the same as not allowing a pregnant woman to get a divorce.

Not sure what marital rights you are referring to. IME those terminate with formal separation, change of will, or redesignation of beneficiaries. However, it may take competent counsel to do all of that, and not just a NoLo book. Claims to the children in case of death are independent of the divorce.

My take is that the author of the article was doing a flame dance and that the prior post made by "in search of sanity" and subsequent thread is much more representative of the reality of the situation.

Delay the divorce decree to get things corrected is scarcely an infringement of rights. I do wonder though how it got to the judge in such shape.

[Pithlet]

23. There is no reason

to hold off on the divorce until after the baby is born. There is nothing that can't be handled then. You concurring that the divorce decree needs to address all open issues misses that point. That was what I was pointing out to you. And since marriage is more than just simply a piece of paper, I do feel that objecting when a judge takes the condition of a woman into account when deciding to grant a divorce DOES set a disturbing precedence. No one is overreacting, here.

[renaissanceguy]

24. From a practical perspective

The longer the woman has to wait--and be filled with religious propaganda--she might have second thoughts. Even without the religious aspect, she might begin to panic about finances, etc. In that case, she might feel compelled to stay in her abusive relationship.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.14741250

[antigone382]

20. But it isn't even her current husband's child.

She actually got pregnant while he was in prison, months after she had filed for divorce. He has no rights to the child, nor (I suppose) any obligation to it. There's another thread in GD: P on this same case.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1463336

[Nikepallas]

5. That is such bull crap! and when the abuser kills her and the baby

will the Judge be held responsible? No it's always the wife's fault. AHHHHHHHHHH:nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Cerridwen]

9. Fortunately, the abuser is currently serving time for, uh, yeah,

you guessed it, domestic violence.

[WildClarySage]

25. And inevitably, some will ask

why didn't she just leave?

[bloom]

6. that's bizarre....

seems like it must be based on old ideas of legitimacy....

[Canadian Socialist]

10. I thought

that legitimacy was no longer an issue in the States?

Could it have something to do with the "continuation of the name"? Although many cultures (throughout history) only recognize the mother's side... cause, you know, only the mother can rightfully say it's her's. (e.g. being Jewish comes down from the mother's side, as well as male pattern baldness <g>)

[Cerridwen]

14. It's a financial/custody issue.

I still don't agree with it, obviously.

[WildClarySage]

18. One possible issue for Ms Hughes

is that getting a civil protection order enforced is a legal sticky wicket. There are instances where refusal to enforce cannot be contested. IIRC, the Thurman case precident was later diminished by another ruling which can let law enforcement off the hook in certain circumstances for not enforcing the CPO. Though few would want to take that chance, DV calls are among LE's least favorite. If there is a marriage order existing between the two parties this can make enforcement more tricky. I have to agree with those who posted that the woman's safety is the paramount issue, with custody/support issues a distant second. Severing ties as quickly as possible. The women most at-risk of domestic violence are the ones who are leaving their abusers and pregnant women.

[politicat]

21. Sounds like we need to separate divorce from custody/support.

I know in Colorado the two are separate, and a divorce decree can go through with a temporary support and maintenance order until a final one can be hammered out. It allows for a quick divorce in cases like this where support and maintenance can be more difficult than the actual dissolution of marriage.

The real worry is for the baby not born and his/her legal parentage. It could make things very sticky for the child if they have to go through a termination of parental rights and adoption by biological father later on, not to mention the families don't appear to have the money for that, anyway.

Pcat