Court upholds denial of pregnant woman’s divorce
A Spokane County judge’s decision last November to cancel a woman’s divorce became a cause celebre for feminist and civil liberties groups around the country. But the judge was right, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday.
Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine, now retired, was upholding due-process rights, not violating Shawnna J. Hughes’ constitutional right to divorce an abusive husband when he rescinded her divorce, according to the Spokane division of the appellate court.
The issue was not the fact that Hughes was pregnant when the decree was granted, but that she misled other parties in the legal proceedings, the court said. Hughes said in the court papers that were served on her husband and state officials that she wasn’t pregnant, but she was pregnant.
Her husband, Carlos Hughes, had a right to be heard in court about his possible paternity interests and the state had an interest in identifying the father because Shawnna Hughes was receiving welfare. Bastine ruled – and the Court of Appeals agreed – that it wasn’t fair to Carlos Hughes or to taxpayers for Hughes to file a different statement at the last minute, without proper notice, that she was pregnant and her husband wasn’t the father.
“Paternity directly affects the (child’s) residential placement and support issues here,” a panel of three appellate judges stated.
Requiring Shawnna Hughes to go back and do it right would delay, not deny, her divorce, Bastine said. Again, the Court of Appeals said Bastine was right. In fact, the court said Bastine had “no choice.”
Hughes and four groups that filed “friend-of-the-court” briefs – the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Legal Momentum, and the National Association of Women – incorrectly cast Bastine’s ruling as an unconstitutional denial of her right to a divorce, the appeals court said.
The groups’ position reflected broad outrage when Hughes’ first-year attorney, Terri Slover of the Center For Justice, went public last December with complaints that a woman shouldn’t be forced to remain married just because she’s pregnant. Especially not to an abusive husband such as Carlos Hughes, who was serving a jail sentence for beating his wife – and under a court order to stay away from her.
The Washington Legislature eventually passed a bill saying pregnancy can’t be the sole basis for denying or delaying a divorce, and Gov. Christine Gregoire signed it in April.
In Hughes’ case, though, the Court of Appeals said Bastine based his decision not on pregnancy, but on two constitutionally valid reasons: proposing a divorce decree that didn’t match the petition, and failure to provide proper notice and relevant information.