Sunday, January 02, 2005
woman in WA state not allowed to divorce abusive spouse
Happy New Year! And welcome to the 1800's...
Apparently in Washington state, women's rights don't matter if they are pregnant. The Stranger has the story about a woman who was granted an uncontested divorce from her abusive (and jailed) husband, only to have the divorce revoked because she is pregnant (and not by her abusive ex/not-ex spouse.)
As the reporter notes, this is chilling for a couple of reasons... the idea that judges can and would prevent pregnant women from legally ending a marriage to abusive spouses is both frightening and absurd. Not to mention the fact that this sort of legal ruling gives abusive men incentive to impregnate their wives to prevent them from trying to end a marriage.
At issue here are questions of paternity and "legitimacy" of the child. Surely refusing a divorce does nothing to solve the issue of paternity, which can be resolved with DNA testing. And the idea that in the year 2005 having a child "out-of-wedlock" is somehow something that a judge should try to prevent - even if it means risking the life of the mother and unborn child - is utterly antiquated and ridiculous.
The crime of the mother is apparently that she is receiving state support for her children, and WA state law prohibits the courts from leaving a child without financial support. So apparently in the eyes of the state, it's better to stay married to a jailed man than to have the option to marry a new person and the actual father of the unborn child... somehow that makes more sense financially...
The lesson for women here is that you'd damn well better not end up on state support otherwise you lose the right to decide whether to divorce or marry.
¶ 11:15 AM
Happy New Year! And welcome to the 1800's...
Apparently in Washington state, women's rights don't matter if they are pregnant. The Stranger has the story about a woman who was granted an uncontested divorce from her abusive (and jailed) husband, only to have the divorce revoked because she is pregnant (and not by her abusive ex/not-ex spouse.)
As the reporter notes, this is chilling for a couple of reasons... the idea that judges can and would prevent pregnant women from legally ending a marriage to abusive spouses is both frightening and absurd. Not to mention the fact that this sort of legal ruling gives abusive men incentive to impregnate their wives to prevent them from trying to end a marriage.
At issue here are questions of paternity and "legitimacy" of the child. Surely refusing a divorce does nothing to solve the issue of paternity, which can be resolved with DNA testing. And the idea that in the year 2005 having a child "out-of-wedlock" is somehow something that a judge should try to prevent - even if it means risking the life of the mother and unborn child - is utterly antiquated and ridiculous.
The crime of the mother is apparently that she is receiving state support for her children, and WA state law prohibits the courts from leaving a child without financial support. So apparently in the eyes of the state, it's better to stay married to a jailed man than to have the option to marry a new person and the actual father of the unborn child... somehow that makes more sense financially...
The lesson for women here is that you'd damn well better not end up on state support otherwise you lose the right to decide whether to divorce or marry.
¶ 11:15 AM
Comments:
<< Home
Judicial activism is only wrong when it's done by liberal judges. When cons do it, it's 'moral values'
blahguy
blahguy
# posted by 
: 8:47 PM
: 8:47 PM
I bet there's a small, but measurable spike in the incidence of wives killing hubbies.Hooray for family values!
I was a child support caseworker here in Alabama a few years back, and the husband is always the legal father of a baby if the couple are still married at the time of birth. If your divorce is final the day before your baby is born, then your ex-husband is not the legal father of the baby. And this is Alabama. I can't imagine states having laws more primitive than ours. Truly scary.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 5:51 PM
: 5:51 PM<< Home
