Beaten woman denied divorce to her abuser
January 3, 2005 10:19 AM   Subscribe

A Spokane woman trying to divorce her estranged husband two years after he was jailed for beating her has been told by a judge she can't get out of the marriage while she's pregnant. Is this another example at an attempt at "moral values?"
posted by agregoli (26 comments total)
 
Yes.
posted by sfslim at 10:29 AM on January 3, 2005


note, she was legally seperated while wannabe-ex was in prison, and the child is from her current boyfriend, who while not in prison currently, is an ex-con. ah, eastern washington...too close to the red states? =p
posted by nomisxid at 10:32 AM on January 3, 2005


For those who don't read the article:

On the one hand, his stated reasoning for delaying (not denying, but delaying) is that state law presumes that the husband is the father until paternity is determined. And within that is the idea of preserving a stable family environment, that the rights of the unborn child takes priority over the desire to exit a bad marriage. On the face of it, I agree from a moral perspective.

On the face.

But when paternity is determined after birth, the child will be born a bastard, thereby destroying the true intent of the law. This make no sense. More importantly, does the judge think for a moment that being party to a criminally abusive marriage will actually be of benefit to the child?

Dude needs to stop being a marriage counselor and sign the damn thing.
posted by parliboy at 10:39 AM on January 3, 2005


"It's not the child's fault that mom got pregnant," [Spokane County Superior Court Judge Paul] Bastine said. "The answer is, you don't go around doing that when you're not divorced."

Fortunately, the judge was arrogant enough to state his personal motives to the newspaper, so hopefully the attorney can use this to get him removed from the case.

Best interests of the child, indeed.
posted by MrZero at 10:45 AM on January 3, 2005


I'm sorry, the man is in jail for BEATING her, how is this a stable family environment?

The judge needs to suffer through a few beatings like a battered woman has in order to realise how stupid this is.

The letter of the law needs either a few less letters, or a few more, that make some kind of sense.
posted by kamylyon at 11:03 AM on January 3, 2005


And that 300 days rule is ludicrous. Modern science can determine the father in about a day - this should not be happening.
posted by Qubit at 11:05 AM on January 3, 2005


I think this is a very good front page post.
posted by bz at 11:21 AM on January 3, 2005


In related news, in India, mobs of women are seeking vigilante justice for exonorated rapists. Discuss.

[GYOB]
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:30 AM on January 3, 2005


Ditto kamylyon.

You forget that the unborn child, who is assumed to be the child of her estranged husband, has the right to be potentially beaten as well.
posted by OhPuhLeez at 11:30 AM on January 3, 2005


Damned activist judges.
posted by RockCorpse at 11:36 AM on January 3, 2005


the rights of the unborn child takes priority over the desire to exit a bad marriage

What "rights" are these, exactly?
posted by rushmc at 11:44 AM on January 3, 2005


I think it's "Godspeed! You Onyx Baron" now, though.

This judge is clearly an idiot. Note, too, that the woman would like the divorce in order to marry the putative father of the child she is going to have, which is why I think something other than a weird "family values" thing is going on here--maybe (seriously) some kind of mental illness or dementia on the judge's part.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:59 PM on January 3, 2005


In all fairness, the judge might be quite rightly concerned that the mother, who allegedly wishes to marry the real father of her baby, is in fact a lesbian who is waiting to go to Canada and marry her lesbian lover. This must certainly be prevented at all costs and I applaud this brave judge's courageous stand against the intifaga.
posted by PigAlien at 1:39 PM on January 3, 2005


Oh, and Jollywanker and mojohand, no one really cares what you think about this post. The people who do care are over in MetaTalk. So, if you really care to stir up shit, just click on that link and start a thread. The rest of us don't want to listen to you.
posted by PigAlien at 1:41 PM on January 3, 2005


'rights of the unborn child'

Until the child is born its rights are those of its mother and regardless of 'marriage bed' if she's being beaten she has the right to get the hell out.

It's the 21st century folks, get these arcane laws off the books and stop allowing human beings to be treated like property.
posted by kamylyon at 1:54 PM on January 3, 2005


Oooh! Look! God Complex got a thesaurus program for Christmas! Hey, everybody! Look! Look! Look at God Complex! God Complex has big words now, just like all the really cool MeFiKids! Geez, I wish I were God Complex!

(Oh, and, BTW, God Complex... bite me. I normally wouldn't even bother with this level of crap on MetaFilter since it's spent the last six months or so turning into such a hit-or-miss hole o' half-baked news but what the hell, I had an extra day off and my boyfriend won't be home for another hour, so why not play a few rounds of tease the short bus club? Especially when some half-tuned, semi-literate dipstick makes it so easy to do...)

(Hey, pig alien: Newsflash: I can read, and I do read MetaTalk, but as have been proven over, and over, and over: most MetaFilter posters don't. If they did, crap posts like this wouldn't appear on the front page, since Matt's said time and again this is the kind of thing that doesn't belong there, whether he deletes this particular example or not. Mojohand and I are as entitled to participate in this thread as you or anyone else, as we see fit, since you seem to feel it belongs on the front page.)
posted by JollyWanker at 2:04 PM on January 3, 2005


I think this is an very good post about a story that I might not otherwise have read about (I say "might" because I read quite a few feminist blogs where such things are more likely to be discussed - I imagine non-feminist blog readers would be much less likely to see stories like this). But I don't think any post about women's issues, no matter how many clever little links attached, would make some people here happy.
posted by eatcherry at 2:44 PM on January 3, 2005


Er, that would be "a" very good post.

Note to self: way to go, you twat. First front page comment and you screw it up.
posted by eatcherry at 2:45 PM on January 3, 2005


Kudos to the judge. Finally someone is doing something to *protect marriage* which doesn't involve preventing people from marrying. There's lots of talk about how same-sex marriage would destroy the institution (pay no attention to places where it is legal, and marriage has not been destroyed!). I say bollocks, it's really divorce which is destroying marriage. If you really want to protect marriage, all you need to do is enforce that whole "til death do us part" oath. I fail to see how encouraging people to marry weakens the institution, regardless of their sexual orientation.

That being said, I don't really believe she should be denied a divorce from her abusive husband. Physical violence is an automatic deal-breaker in marriage, and it's plain stupid to think otherwise.
posted by mullingitover at 2:58 PM on January 3, 2005


The irony, mullingitover, is that the woman wants the divorce so she can remarry the man with whom she conceived the child she is carrying.

JollyWanker, get bent. You don't like the post? Fine. Now shut up.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:08 PM on January 3, 2005


But I don't think any post about women's issues, no matter how many clever little links attached, would make some people here happy.

Very true. I thought it was a worthwhile post, and JollyWanker is being a complete asshole.
posted by languagehat at 3:20 PM on January 3, 2005


If the stress of these proceedings caused the woman to spontaneously abort would it be a miscarriage of justice?
posted by alms at 3:40 PM on January 3, 2005


The sole purpose of the post was to vent and generate discussion filled with similiar-minded venting. Bleh. I see no difference between that post and the one about the angry Indian mob of women.

Hey, here's some news: in some towns, it's forbidden to dance. In some cities, it's forbidden to jay-walk. In some states, it's forbidden to give head. In some countries, it's forbidden to vote. On some websites, it's forbidden to exercise discretion.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:42 PM on January 3, 2005


This thread sucks, because we have little info besides an article & the post's labeling, "moral values. "

Can a member give us some perspective here regarding the post's; location & The State's family legal system. Why I ask? Because it does seem like an agenda against her is taking place, but why?

Is this town small enough that everyone knows everyone business so the judge is scrutinizing over the open case or nepotism.
Also, family court never seems like an easy win


However, the approved divorce papers didn't note that Hughes was pregnant. Sloyer filed amended papers to correct the omission, and the next day, she spoke with Bastine by phone. Bastine said he planned to rescind the divorce and then did so following a Nov. 4 hearing.
"It's not the child's fault that mom got pregnant," Bastine said. "The answer is, you don't go around doing that when you're not divorced."


Or. The judge felt like she lied to him.
[mentioned this before] I didn’t date my signature on a document that was submitted to a County Superior Court Judge in Santa Anna California and let me tell ya…in private she threatened to jail me. Also, she said that my request could be denied on that reason alone. Think that may be the moral value here? Judges take the rules of law to the extreme at times because they can be mean legally.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:44 PM on January 3, 2005


The irony, mullingitover, is that the woman wants the divorce so she can remarry the man with whom she conceived the child she is carrying.
Do we know if the Judge knows why she wants the divorce and believes it?
posted by thomcatspike at 3:58 PM on January 3, 2005


In comments submitted to Bastine, Hughes said: "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."

So, yes, she has told the court that she wishes to divorce her abusive husband and marry the man who is the father of her child before the birth of that child.
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:43 PM on January 3, 2005


« Older A worm in the head   |   The Piracy Pyramid Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments