What the @^*R%? Activist judges redux.

Forums: Legal
Email this Topic • Print this Page

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.

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

This woman husband had been convicted of beating her.

They separated and she filed for divorce in April.

She later became pregnant by another man (the baby is due in March).

Her husband never contested the divorce.

The approved divorce papers didn't mention the pregnancy and when amended papers were filed, Judge Bastine rescinded the divorce.

"One of the problems here was that the hild was not made party to the litigation," Bastine said.

Bestine also says "that the rights of the unborn child in this type of case trump a woman's right to divorce".

Now the woman cannot marry the child's father before the child is born as she had planned to do.

What say you, A2Kers?

Are you as dumbfounded by this as I am?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 954 • Replies: 13

No top replies

I am momentarily speechless.

0 Replies

Doesn't the fact that she wants to marry the child's father trump whatever shred of logic the judge is using?

Absolutely terrible connection, will read the article later and see if there is some aspect that allows it to make sense, but seems pretty silly from the info here.

0 Replies

I think I have just stepped through the looking glass and am following a white rabbit who keeps checking his watch. This is unreal!

0 Replies

Whoop that judge's ass and set him adrift on a watersoaked log.

0 Replies

Noddy24 wrote:

I am momentarily speechless.

me too

0 Replies

I remember reading a thread on A2K not long ago where a woman was asking about having her child's father's rights terminated. The court wouldn't allow her to do it because of child support - even though both parents agreed to the terminatin of rights and the father wasn't making payments anyway. It seemed the state (Texas?) was worried that she would later file for TANF and they wouldn't be able to go after the father for support payments first.

It seem like that is what is going on here, at least by the judge's rationale.

But this case is about divorce - not paternity.

The husband (I think) was in jail at the time of conception and could no way be the father.

Another man admits to being the father.

Neither article that I've read (in my daily paper or the one I found online) really mentions the law that is being applied in a way that makes much sense.

It will be interesting to watch this case unravel.

0 Replies

I guess the thing I find most frightening is the comment that "the rights of the unborn child trump the rights of the woman to get divorced"

What rights of the child are being violated by the divorce?

What in the world can he possibly mean?

0 Replies

Being charitable to the judge, I'd guess that he thinks that the husband is also the father--in which case Carlos would have some rights.

I know in PA these days, unmarried studs are invited into the delivery room. When the birth is accomplished, nurse says, "Look Daddy, while they clean your son/daughter and his/her mother up a bit, let's take care of the paperwork."

The biggest part of this paperwork is that "Daddy" becomes "Father" on the birth certificate.

I hope that the father of the child is in the delivery room--and that Carlos is still in jail.

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

I guess the thing I find most frightening is the comment that "the rights of the unborn child trump the rights of the woman to get divorced"

What rights of the child are being violated by the divorce?

What in the world can he possibly mean?

I'd have to guess that what he is referring to is the right of that child, once born, to be supported by his/her parents.

In many states (not sure about WA) any child conceived during a marriage is automatically presummed to be the child of the married couple and the male (who in this case isn't the father) is tagged for child support in an eventual divorce even though the child isn't his.

This whole case is just odd though.

0 Replies

I suppose it could be that the judge presumes the child to be the husbands.

And I can understand that the father should bear some burden of supporting the child financially.

But I don't see where divorce or lack of divorce has any real bearing on that.

"Odd" is a good word for it.

I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this one by a long shot.

I am prone to supporting a judge's decision - even when its one I disagree with - a long as he seems to be applying law pertinent to the case.

I don't see it here.

On a side note....

I wonder where all the people who scream about activist judges are today?

I'd love to hear their take on this.

Is a judge only an "activist judge" if his decisions are based on a more liberal ideology?

0 Replies

And I thought the State of Washington is more
progressive as Alabama.

I truly hope this poor women will either contest this
court decision or find another way to escape this dilemma.

Unbelievable, that such rulings can happend in 2005.

0 Replies

-"If the law supposes that", said Mr. Bumble, "the law is a ass, an idiot".-
(Charles Dickens, "Oliver Twist")

0 Replies

boomerang wrote:

On a side note....

I wonder where all the people who scream about activist judges are today?

I'd love to hear their take on this.

Is a judge only an "activist judge" if his decisions are based on a more liberal ideology?

I don't think the concept of being an "activist judge" really applies here regardless of ones political bent.

An "activist judge" is one that finds rationale for their decisions outside of the existing laws or applies entirely new meaning to existing laws. Even the article you originally linked to, which is very sympathetic toward the woman, admits that this ruling is in-line with at least one of two varying laws on the books.

Ruling within the status quo would be an opposite of activist.

0 Replies

What the @^*R%? Activist judges redux.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know