Sorry, I'm not buying it. I'll grant you your statement is true in many cases. Here, though, it just doesn't fly for the following reasons:
(1) KH has sole custody of the baby and TH is restrained from any contact;
(2) We aren't talking about postponing the divorce, TH isn't contesting the divorce and the divorce can be granted immediately, we're only talking about delaying the division of custodial rights and marital assets;
(3) TH is unemployed, has no independent assets amd is likely unemployable until the criminal case is resolved - KH isn't getting any money out of this divorce, he'll only be paying it out to TH;
(4) TH's motion for abatement stipulated away all of the other valid financial reasons KH may have had to oppose it (e.g., she waived any claim to the earnings on the marital assets post separation); and
(5) the baby is not old enough to understand and be anxious over a delay in the resolution of her parents' financial situation.
No, KH has no reason to fight the motion for abatement other than as a vehicle to sling mud at TH via court motions that are immediately released in the press.