(no subject)

[apocalypsos]

Jerry Orbach's dead?! *whimper*

In other news, can I stay home and write? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease? What do you mean, 'No'? Hmph. Killjoys.

EDIT: You want to divorce your abusive husband? Not a problem. Oh, wait, you're pregnant. Sorry, no divorce. After all, your kid needs an abusive a father. Like whispersinink said, aren't you thrilled we're getting rid of those activist judges? *end sarcasm*

Comments

[rani23.livejournal.com]

Dude -- that sucks!

[palmetto.livejournal.com]

...excuse me, I need to go have a good cry now.

[foenix.livejournal.com]

...

Holy shit.

I wasn't really a fan of the shows, but my parents watched it...a lot, on TNT, so I kinda got used to his vocie in the background.

J

[kathih.livejournal.com]

Its so sad! I just saw that online!

[irishblessing.livejournal.com]

... my day just got worse. :\

I'll miss Jerry.

[sabotabby]

What? No! That guy was awesome.

::is a sad L&O junkie::

[dolimir-k.livejournal.com]

Regarding the ETA, I'm afraid that law has been on the books for quite some time. It originally came about to prevent children from carrying the label bastard.

This is not to say that she can't divorce him once the baby is born, but a divorce concerns issues such as custody, visitation, insurance, etc. You really can't do that before the child is born. God forbid something can happen. The child could die in utero or something could go wrong during the birth. You can't second guess these things.

Now, some courts will bifurcate the divorce. In other words, they grant the divorce and reserve the right to decide all issues concerning the child once it is born.

Essentially she has a good ethics complaint on her hands as she obviously got bad advice from her attorney, who had to have known she was pregnant.

As much as situations like this suck, there are good reasons for the laws in question.

[stone-princess.livejournal.com]

Well part of the problem is that it also applies even if the baby can be proven not to be the husband's child. I know someone who seperated from her husband for many months, decided to get divorced, got pregnant by someone else and now can't get divorced from the husband until after the baby is born, even though she's living with the father of the baby and hasn't been with the husband in nearly two years. Admittedly she got herself in stupid situation, but such situations and cases of domestic violence really outweigh any good I think such laws could do.

[arks.livejournal.com]

Why on earth can't you do that stuff before birth? So the kid could die during childbirth- it could die in its first few weeks or months alive, too. I don't see any reason a divorce can't be arranged in terms of a hypothetical baby just as well as with one right there in the mother's arms. Even supposing that were the case, then shouldn't bifurcation be the norm?

I don't really see where the label of bastard comes into it. One supposes that if the wife is attempting a divorce during pregnancy, then she's considered that angle and decided that the advantages of separation outweigh such concerns.

[paranoidgrl.livejournal.com]

Legally, a child born during a marriage is presumed to be the child of the husband. You have to prove otherwise for the husband *not* to be responsible for the child. In the state that I'm in, you can't get divorced while pregnant because the Judge routinely makes a finding of paternity in divorces, and he has to give the parties an opportunity to do DNA testing. Now, if all the parties agree Husband isn't the father, and boyfriend is willing to admit paternity (and accept financial responsibility for child) it seems the problems the Court is worried about disappear. Maybe because husband isn't responding, that's part of the problem.

[silmaril.livejournal.com]

theweaselking also posted that link, and he added a bit of information that might be useful for folks who have a better hand for writing stuff like this:


Paul A. Bastine, Judge
dept8@spokanecounty.org

[neadods.livejournal.com]

there are good reasons for the laws in question

There were, maybe, before DNA testing and back when being born out of wedlock is a big deal. Now that paternity is fluid and partnership irrelevant, not so much.

And, as someone pointed out in the Repro Rights community, this gives really abusive men (the "leave me and you die" type) a reason to rape their wives into pregnancy and therefore the inability to divorce.

[dolimir-k.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I actually had a case like this. We had to wait until the baby was born and the actual father admitted custody before we could get them divorced.

I get so frustrated with women sometimes. Some of them really do get themselves into weird situations.

[dolimir-k.livejournal.com]

I wish the law was simple, but it's not. The court, in family case situations, will only deal in concrete facts. There are just too many things that could go wrong with hypothetical babies. The system may not be perfect for every situation, but it does the best it can for the majority.

The bastard label really is a throwback to older times. The law changes very slowly...and in a way you sort of want it that way. Law that are inacted as knee jerk reactions usually have really bad consequences (i.e. the recent ban on same sex marriages).

[dolimir-k.livejournal.com]

While your concern is a valid one, it rarely happens. In today's society, women are learning that you can leave an abusive man.

Even if a man did rape his wife to stay married to her, it would only last until the baby was born. If she wanted a divorce, she would be able to get one at that point. Also, if she could prove the rape, there are very few courts that would look kindly on such a situation. Most courts would bend over backwards to keep her and her child safe.

[dolimir-k.livejournal.com]

Good points.

I think the thing everyone is forgetting here is that the court isn't going to force them to live with each other. They're simply going to make her wait until the child is born.

[stone-princess.livejournal.com]

Yes, indeed. I've been frustrated with this person's situation since she left her husband. And although it's mostly her fault for her actions, the judge initially didn't tell them why he was denying the divorce and it took them months to figure out what was going on, since her husband wants to be free just as bad as she does. Ugh.

[frogmajick.livejournal.com]

I live in Spokane and I have been divorced. I can tell you that this is a huge civil rights issue because of how the state law is written. Everything about protecting the child blah blah blah is BS. This is a one judge thing. I might understand if the fellow was an abusive big business man in town, but he's a convicted felon and those are the easiest guys to get divorced from.

I haven't heard anything about this on the local news...so I passed on the tip. They LOVE stuff like this.

[fyrdrakken]

There's that, and there's also the fact that the husband is the father of the two kids the woman already has so she's kind of going to remain tied to him anyway so far as they're concerned with child support or visitation rights or whatever (assuming he gets any once he's out of prison, between his record and her restraining order). Being legally bound to an ex -- even when you no longer live together, even when you've moved on to a new SO -- causes some major long-term problems, though, especially where legal rights regarding what you can do with the kids and where credit records are concerned. My father had a divorce that stretched on for a couple of years (because my stepmother kept firing her lawyers when they told her she couldn't demand more in the settlement than my father's entire net worth, and kept refusing to sign even though she'd been the one to file for the divorce) and his hands were tied when it came to any major expenditures.

[fyrdrakken]

Most courts would bend over backwards to keep her and her child safe.

Except, apparently, ones in Spokane, Washington.

[fyrdrakken]

What I find cynically amusing is how so many things claimed to "protect children" do so by tying their mothers' hands in various ways. I continue to believe that people who preach the loudest about "family values" specifically value "barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen."

[denial-girl.livejournal.com]

Sigh. RIP Jerry.

[callmesyd.livejournal.com]

Jerry? Nuuuuuu! *sniffles and goes to find her copy of Beauty and The Beast*

[lots42.livejournal.com]

Makes me crave for life on the island because there, if someone is giving you shit, you just talk to Sayid and his boytoy buddy, The Doc.

[paranoidgrl.livejournal.com]

What is it about divorce that you think will keep her safe?

[lulybunny.livejournal.com]

Um, right. Yet another reason to never ever get married. When I say, "leave a man", I godfuckingdamm well mean "LEAVE a man." No permission from nobody. GAH.

[fyrdrakken]

Actually, I think her restraining order will do more towards keeping her safe than the divorce will. But my father had a divorce that stretched on for a couple of years between my stepmother filing and finally signing the papers, so I got to see second-hand how badly it fucks up your ability to handle your finances. There are obviously going to be differences between the states of Washington and of Texas, but this country's laws are set up with the legal assumption that a husband's and wife's finances are joined when they marry, and it ties one's hands in nifty ways regarding what you can risk doing with your money while in that legal limbo of the divorce not being finalized yet. Also, I'm betting that custodial arrangements (for the two kids that are presumably the husband's, at least) won't be settled till the divorce is final, and though I think the odds of her getting sole custody under the circumstances are pretty good (what with him having various convictions including for domestic violence), the sooner she can get that settled I think the less likely he'll realize that if he can swing visitation rights that'll force continued contact or if can snatch one or two from school he's got a hostage to use against her.

If nothing else, I found it significant that she wanted the divorce final before he gets out of prison. It hints to me of arrangements she wants to make to keep herself away from him that aren't possible while she remains legally bound to him.