SPOKANE, Wash. - When Shawnna Hughes discovered she was pregnant, her husband was in jail for beating her. She sought a divorce before his release, and he did not object - but a judge did.
Superior Court Judge Paul Bastine revoked Hughes' divorce until after she gives birth because her husband was not told she was going to have a child and paternity had not been established.
"It is the policy of the state that you cannot dissolve a marriage when one of the parties is pregnant," he said during oral arguments on the case last month.
Hughes, a 27-year-old medical assistant, is seven months pregnant and says her husband, Carlos Hughes, is not the father. She has appealed the decision.
"I'm devastated," she said, calling her husband "very, very violent."
Carlos Hughes is in jail in Montana awaiting trial on federal drug charges and Bastine noted that Shawnna Hughes has a restraining order that prevents her husband from contacting her, even if they remain married. But women's advocates worry the ruling sets an unsettling precedent.
"This is a woman in domestic violence asking to get out of the relationship," said Hughes' attorney, Terri Sloyer. "We're telling abusers that if you can get her pregnant you can keep her married to you."
Lawyers supporting Hughes' appeal said Bastine is misinterpreting a state law intended to standardize paternity and protect the rights of children and the state.
"No provision in state law authorizes a judge to decline to issue a divorce because the woman is pregnant," said the American Civil Liberties Union's Doug Honig
"Women should be able to choose for themselves when they want to end a marriage. That's especially important for women in abusive relationships."
But Bastine, who retired on Friday, said the issue is more complex. Attorneys for Shawnna Hughes did not immediately disclose that she was pregnant in the midst of the divorce proceedings. Under state law, an ex-husband is presumed to be the father of any child born up to 300 days after a divorce and can be liable for child support, Bastine said.
"You needed to serve him and give him notice that his rights as a father or as a non-father were being determined in that matter. It wasn't done," the judge said.
Further muddying the waters is Shawnna Hughes' reliance on public assistance. The state objected to the divorce because it might leave the state unable to identify a father and pursue him for repayment of welfare money used to support the child.
Bastine agreed to revoke the divorce until paternity is scientifically established.
