Remember kids in divorce reform

A Spokane family law case got national attention when a judge rescinded a woman’s divorce, citing her pregnancy. The decision was certainly an attention-getter, and the complicating factors surrounding proper procedures and due process got lost in the outcry.

Spokane County Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine decided the case as other judges would have. It’s also true that other judges might have handled it differently. Hence, the need for the Washington Legislature to step in and provide clarity to the state’s divorce laws as they relate to paternity, child support and state aid.

The woman in this particular case, Shawnna J. Hughes, filed for divorce from a husband who was serving a jail sentence for abusing her. In the meantime, she became pregnant. She says the father of the child is not her husband. Her husband did not contest the divorce; he was not notified of the pregnancy. Because Hughes’ two children receive public assistance, the state got involved.

According to court records, the state was told that Hughes was not pregnant. Then it was told she was. Learning of this, Bastine rescinded a divorce granted by a pro-tem commissioner, saying the presumed father had not received notification of the pregnancy and that paternity had not been established in court.

Should any of that matter when women are seeking a divorce? Women’s rights activists say applying the state’s divorce law that way amounts to discrimination against pregnant women. That’s a legitimate civil rights point, and it has prompted a bill in the state Legislature, which would amend the state’s divorce statute. The amendment reads: “In considering a petition for dissolution, a court may not use the petitioner’s pregnancy as a basis for denying the decree for dissolution, nor may the court continue the matter on that basis.”

That’s fine as far as it goes. But that doesn’t address the other aspects of complicated family law cases. Even if such a law were to pass, the Spokane County court would still be interested in the issue of paternity in case like Hughes’, says Superior Court Presiding Judge Linda Tompkins.

Under the state’s Uniform Parentage Act, the presumed father is whoever the husband was within 300 days after the divorce. If, in a case like Hughes’, the woman were granted a divorce but never returned to court again, the child would be in legal limbo and the state would be assigning child support responsibilities to the wrong man.

In debating the changes to the divorce statute, the Legislature should make sure these complications are not overlooked. Perhaps the state needs a law that allows a pregnant woman to have a divorce but makes it clear that she is responsible for establishing the paternity of the child in a timely manner.

The state shouldn’t discriminate against pregnant women, but lawmakers are missing an opportunity to clarify thorny family law issues if they don’t go beyond the current bill.