Divorce, Washington Style
How’s this for screwed up: a woman in Washington State escaped an abusive marriage two years ago, when her husband was jailed for beating her. Last April, she filed for divorce. The divorce came through, but now it’s rescinded. Why? Because she is currently pregnant by her new partner.
Yeah, I know, that’s like a “Wha???” kind of thing. But it’s true. She got pregnant by a different man after she had filed for divorce. She was getting on with her life, thought that she’d left her wife-beating husband behind, and now the State of Washington throws this at her.
The reason? According to Spokane County Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine, the judge who rescinded the divorce, he doesn’t want the child to be illegitimate. “It’s not the child’s fault that mom got pregnant,” the judge said. “The answer is, you don’t go around doing that when you’re not divorced.” This, even thought the woman has clearly stated that she wants to marry the child’s real father before the child is born. She commented, “If this court vacates my divorce and requires me to stay married to a man I have no desire ever to have a relationship with and who has brought significant physical harm to me over the years, I would be emotionally devastated. If the court vacates my divorce and stays it until the birth of my child, it will prevent me from marrying the father of my child prior to her birth.”
Who wants to bet money against the chance that this idiot of a judge is a Republican?
I doubt this is the norm in Spokane, Washington. Though apparently it is NOT an uncommon thing, for judges to refuse divorces to pregnant women.
Absolutely ridiculous.
But then, there are many situations where the law, or judges, seem totally messed up because of a law that’s meant to protect someone winding up hurting someone.
For example, I think the issue here is that there might be some law that’s supposed to protect pregnant women from being abandoned by spouse’s medical insurance during pregnancy, in cases where men are filing for the divorce. That’s the only thing I can think of.
It’s like the issue where because of a law, parents are unable to prosecute their babysitter for abuse, because they took hidden camera video of the babysitter, and that evidence is not allowed, because hidden cameras are not allowed.
Then on the other side of that law (or absense of it), you have that case where the 19 year old woman moved back in with her parents, and her old room, where her father’s computer was… and then she found that her father had been taking web cam photos/video of her without her knowing it, naked, while dressing, and heaven knows what else. She took it to the police, and she was required by law to return the videos & photos to her pervert father, because under the law there was no protection for her.
(I’m sorry I can’t cite links to the examples, I just remember hearing about them – the case of the woman w/ the pervert father was on a prime time news show in the spring of 2003, I believe.)
At any rate, it shows that the same law that might protect one person in a situation, can also protect the guilty and hurt the innocent in another situation.
That said, it’s obvious that this judge is off his freakin’ rocker, considering the husband is in prison for beating her, and he’s not the unborn child’s father anyway.
As for the Republican issue…
It occurred to me that no such law to protect pregnant women would be necessary if we had a single payer insurance system in the U.S., like they do in Australia.
But of course Republicans are generally stringently against the type of insurance system Australians have.
And yeah, of course it’s generally Republicans who voice rather moralist elite attitudes in relation to the law – such as that the woman shouldn’t have been having sex before her divorce was final.
Well, you know what, I agree, in my opinion, jumping into bed with another man would seem imprudent and unwise, and not really in line with my own morals in behaviour – however, I do NOT believe it should have an effect on the law or her ability to get a divorce and remarry the new guy. It’s not really my business, nor the judge’s business, the way she conducts her personal affairs. She was seperated from the guy and proceeding with a divorce, it’s hardly adultery. And even so, why would adultery prevent her from getting the divorce finalized? It should speed things up, from all angles!