[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

TheyÂ’re refusing to release the Minnesota shooterÂ’s manifestoÂ… TSA agent dodges Local 10 News after being accused of assaulting senior "Major Escalation!" Just happened In Iran-Israel War as Trump faces CRISIS MOMENT | 'GET RID OF THEM': Exiled crown prince reveals why Iranian regime is weaker than ever "This Changes Everything" - Scott Ritter Says Israel's Strike on Iran Could Spark Global War New Germans celebrate Carnival in Berlin. Northern Ireland in Flames: Riots Erupt Over Immigration, Housing & Crime China Has Started Supplying Weapons To Iran IRAN Wiped Out U.S. THAAD System, Two F-35 Fighters, and 'David's Sling' System Iran is Getting Destroyed and Russia Can't Do Anything MSM is straight up lying to you about Vance Boelter. I Flipped 100 Rocks in a Rainforest, Here's What I Found... Paul Joseph Watson She F*cked Up Real Bad How Effective is THAAD in Defending Israel Against Iranian Missile Strikes? L.A. has deployed their tactical women’s assault team (Satire) Sky News vs. Iranian Professor: The Most Intense Interview of 2025! Media Critics Call on CNN to Fire Brian Stelter Over Reckless Tweet Following Minnesota Shooting Minnesota Gunman Vance Boelters Wife Detained for Questioning Sanctuary State Governors Double Down On Illegal Immigration In Tense Capitol Hearing Iranian Missiles OBLITERATE Israeli Nuclear Facility — Massive Explosions Rock Tel Aviv! The Most Environmentalist Woman in the World (Satire) Trump Rejects Netanyahu's Request To Join War, As Israel Needs Large US Bunker Buster Bombs Inside the Chaos: Paid Rioters, Fake News & The 2025 Shift Ft. Brandon Tatum What the Media IsnÂ’t Telling You About IsraelÂ’s Strike on Iran (VIDEO) 'No Kings' Terror? Fake Cop Assassinates Minnesota Democrat Who Blocked Health Care for Illegals Peter Thiel’s Insane Doomsday Escape Plan Nigel Farage warns riots will sweep Britain due to decades-long failure to control immigration School board trains staff that the term family is harmful, racist Fort Wayne joins in on nationwide ‘No Kings’ protests, honoring veterans and giving back More than a human can bear

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: Former Lesbian Couple Battles Over Child Custody
Source: The New American
URL Source: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index ... ple-battles-over-child-custody
Published: Dec 31, 2009
Author: Rebecca Terrell
Post Date: 2009-12-31 17:13:22 by farmfriend
Keywords: None
Views: 5044
Comments: 157

Former Lesbian Couple Battles Over Child Custody

Written by Rebecca Terrell
Thursday, 31 December 2009 01:00

A seven-year-old girl stands in the crosshairs of a bizarre custody battle between former lesbian domestic partners Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins. The Wall Street Journal reports that Miller is the child's biological mother and conceived her by artificial insemination while living with Jenkins in Vermont, where they were joined in a civil union in 2001. Miller became a Christian in 2003, renounced the homosexual lifestyle, and moved to Virginia with her then-infant daughter, Isabella Miller-Jenkins.

Jenkins sued for unsupervised visitation, which Vermont Judge William Cohen granted after dissolving the civil union, but Miller refused to comply with the court order. She said allowing Isabella to spend time unsupervised with Jenkins would violate her Christian principles. Miller appealed the visitation order to courts in Vermont and Virginia. The VermontTimes Argus reports that Miller's attorneys argued that Isabella has not lived with Jenkins since she was a baby. A doctor who testified in the case said the change could "induce devastating trauma." Miller also expressed concern that Jenkins refuses to take Isabella to church. Jenkins' attorneys denied these claims.

Miller's appeals in both states were unsuccessful, but she remained in contempt. As a result, in November the court awarded Jenkins sole custody. According to the Wall Street Journal, an attorney for Jenkins claimed, "It is Ms. Jenkins' intent when she has custody of Isabella to allow as liberal contact as is possible with her other mother."

Miller tried to delay the transfer, set for January 1, but the court denied that request, too. Now, Miller and Isabella are missing. ABC News reports that no one has seen or heard from either of them since November 20, not even Miller's attorneys.

Under Vermont law, Jenkins is one of Isabella's legally recognized parents. She filed a missing person report on Wednesday since she does not know the whereabouts of her daughter. Her attorney Sarah Star said Jenkins is concerned about Isabella's safety and about Miller's mental stability. ABC News also quoted a professor of constitutional law at Vermont Law School who explained that if the transfer does not take place January 1, the court will likely issue a warrant for Miller's arrest.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 116.

#4. To: farmfriend (#0)

Miller's appeals in both states were unsuccessful, but she remained in contempt. As a result, in November the court awarded Jenkins sole custody.

She had a child with the woman. Her newly minted Christian status doesn't change that. IMHO, she is using her Christianity as a feeble excuse to be vindictive. Now that she lost her feeble legal argument she opts to take the child on the run. That doesn't make her mother of the year.

abraxas  posted on  2009-12-31   19:03:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

She had a child with the woman.

Actually, she had a child with some anonymous sperm donor. The child, as Archie Bunker might have said, is the result of artificial invigoration (that is what he called artificial insemination). I can't disagree with her taking the child and going wherever she has to so that this other woman has no contact with the child.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-12-31   19:06:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I can't disagree with her taking the child and going wherever she has to so that this other woman has no contact with the child.

This woman had no problem with her lover as a parent when she was munching her carpet and planning to have children together.

Now she changes her mind and the other woman has no rights? I call BS on that. There is not one iota of evidence that Jenkins is unfit to parent. The child was conceived in a legal marital union, granting parental rights.

Taking the child on the run is good for the kid? I think not. She has no basis for her "no contact" claims, other than she's a newly minted Christian who doesn't act like a Christian at all. Her religious claims are bovine excrement. Frankly, this woman doesn't sound all that stable for parenting. Perhaps, the child would be better off with her other mommy even if she is still munching carpets, at least she isn't confused and vindictive.

abraxas  posted on  2009-12-31   19:28:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The child was conceived in a legal marital union, granting parental rights.

And that is why there should no such thing as "gay marriage". For the sake of personal bliss and "in your face" satisfaction of homosexuals, children adopted or "artificially conceived" by these folks are scared for life by the nagging knowledge that their parents are having homosexual sex, and that at LEAST one of them are not their REAL parent.

What ever happened to the concept of doing what's best in the interest of the child?

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-01-01   14:45:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

What ever happened to the concept of doing what's best in the interest of the child?

The time to think about that is PRIOR to having the child, not after you move to a state to have your gay marriage and secure your sperm donor. Just because one gay lover has a change of heart doesn't alter the contract or the rights.

Gay marriage is already in this state, this argument is moot in this case.

What is a REAL parent? Are adoptive children left with FAKE parents? Biology is not the best factor to determine ability to parent. Many mothers kill their children, many do not care for them as they should, many are too selfish to consider what is best for their children.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   14:53:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The time to think about that is PRIOR to having the child

The CHILD had no say in that decision though did she. Her rights are SUPPOSED to be protected by the court, where the court in MOST states weigh their decisions largely on what is best for the child.

The child should NOT be subjected to men having oral or anal sex in a bedroom next to theirs, or women having oral sex or playing with dildoes in an adjacent room. This child may not even KNOW that her real mother is or was a lesbain in the past, and exposing or revealing this info to her may very well traumatize her and screw her up for life. If forced to "visit" with this other woman, who perhaps might by now have another "girlfriend", who's to say she won't be having sex in a room close to the child's room, and making so much noice the child hears it?

It's one thing if the other woman was a REAL parent, and not just some lesbain whom her mother had a relationship with in the past.

The fact is, if you have read the story, this child lived with these two woman for a brief time as an infant, and more than likely doesn't even know this other woman, or thinks she was just her mom's friend if she does remember her at all.

This other woman more than likely doesn't care one bit about the child, and is just using the court and the legal process to TORMENT this mother AND her child solely as a form of revenge for leaving her and hurting her feelings.

If anything, this other woman may VERY WELL be interested in molesting the girl as FURTHER revenge against her former lover.

Biology is not the best factor to determine ability to parent. Many mothers kill their children, many do not care for them as they should, many are too selfish to consider what is best for their children.

So, you think a former gay lover with no ties at all to the child would be a better parent than the child's own mother who obviously loves her and is trying to protect her. Yeah ok, I'm sure the mother must be planning to kill her, that's what biological parents do. Maybe the state should just take all children from their parents, since parents kill their kids.

Sheesh.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-01-01   15:10:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So, you think a former gay lover with no ties at all to the child would be a better parent than the child's own mother who obviously loves her and is trying to protect her.

Maybe so, the courts think so. Her biological mother has made her a fugative and risks going to jail rather than compliance with the court.

You say trying to protect, but from what? Her own sordid past? Her former carptet munching? Do you not believe that the truth sets you free? Do you not believe that people should take responsibility for the choices that they make? Do you believe that dishonesy and running from the law is the best choice for mother and child? I DON'T.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   15:15:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

What it comes down to abraxas is that you appear to be of the opinion since the mother made a bad decision in her past, the child must be punished, simply because some lesbain wants some revenge against the child's mother.

So what if this lesbain wishes to brainwash the child and start having sex with her, it's all cool, because in that state gay marriage is legal.

If this were a case of heterosexual parents, with one adoptive parent being vindictive against the biological parent and seeking visitation or custody, the court would side with the biological parent if the child was the same sex, and perhaps with the adoptive parent if that parent was of the same sex as the child.

However, in the case of homosexual parents, where one parent has shunned their homosexuality and is the biological parent, well I'd say that parent is most CERTAINLY the better parent and WILL do what is best for the child. Exposing the child to a perverse lifestyle against their will and the will of their natural parent can and more than likely WILL do irrepairable harm to the child, and destroy any hope for a normal life that child ever had.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-01-01   15:23:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So what if this lesbain wishes to brainwash the child and start having sex with her, it's all cool, because in that state gay marriage is legal.

There is no evidence to support this idiotic statement.

I'm of the opinion that you take responsibility for your actions. Why is that this woman was good enough to be a parent when the two wives found a sperm donor and made up the nursery, but now she is no longer fit? Just because one mommy decides to not munch carpet anymore, the other one becomes unfit?

Exactly, who made the bad decision? The fugitive mom on the run or the ex-wife fighting for her parental rights in court?

The child is being punished by having to live as a fugitive. The child is being punished by having her hypocritical mother move her all over the country to run from mommies mistakes. Wow....that is really teaching some good morals, right? Just run from your mistakes.

How does the ex-wife "want revenge" simply because she petitions to be a part of the life of the child? Again, you have no evidence to support this position. The court case indidcates that the former carpet muncher seeks revenge, not the other way around.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   15:31:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So abraxas, while THIS particular woman may or may not have an interest in molesting young girls, the chances are HIGH that she does.

For that very reason the court should have sided with the biological mother who has renounced the gay lifestyle and is trying to give her child a normal life.

Regardless, it is for this very reason the government should either NOT allow gay adoption or simply refuse to allow gay marriages in the first place since it can and does lead to serious issues far worse than those involved in normal divorces when things don't work out. I could care less about either the mother or her former lover, I care about the true victim here and that is this innocent little girl.

Do you think this little 7 year-old should be torn from her actual mother whom she's lived with her entire life, and be forced to live with a woman living a perverse lifestyle, whom the child doesn't even know?

Regardless if the woman is a molestor nor not, this still isn't right.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-01-01   16:03:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So abraxas, while THIS particular woman may or may not have an interest in molesting young girls, the chances are HIGH that she does.

Do you think this little 7 year-old should be torn from her actual mother whom she's lived with her entire life, and be forced to live with a woman living a perverse lifestyle, whom the child doesn't even know?

Again, this is your opinion, not a fact.

Who is responsible for the court's decision? Mom on the run. A mother who wants to protect her child would have considered the consequences of her actions, from beginning to end. All this fighting and moving to keep the ex- wife from the child couldn't have been healthy or in any way promoted well adjustment.

Do you run from your mistakes? I don't and I won't give a free pass for mom on the run to do this either. As a mother, I find her actions dispicable. She put her child in this position under the guise of being a "Christian" and as is the case in life, each action has a consequence. When the police track her down and her child is taken from her, she will have no one to blame but herself.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   16:10:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Again, this is your opinion, not a fact.

No, it is NOT an opinion that this little girl has little or no recollection of this other woman, she was TWO years old when she last saw her, and more than likely thinks she was just a friend of her mom.

If the other parent had been a man, and the biological mother took off with the kid, there would be little or no action on the part of the government to track the mother down and force her to cough up the child.

It's only because it's a gay matter that this is getting so much attention and the government becomes so concerned and actually acts as if it cares about a "parent's rights".

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-01-01   16:19:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

No, it is NOT an opinion that this little girl has little or no recollection of this other woman, she was TWO years old when she last saw her, and more than likely thinks she was just a friend of her mom.

Are you saying that parents do not bond with a child who is two and under? Are you saying the child doesn't bond with parents prior to the age of two. I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. Bonding on both sides is firmly established.

What is this "just a friend of her mom" crap? The two women were married, made a nursery together, changed diapers together, got up 2 am for feedings, ooohed and aaahhhed of over the first smile, first crawling, first steps. You're not a parent are you?

That's a sad commentary if you think that dad's can't get action for their parental rights in court. That says more about our crappy system than the merits of this case.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   16:26:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Are you saying that parents do not bond with a child who is two and under?

I'm not looking at the bond this other woman may have felt towards the little girl, but that of whatever bond the little girl may have felt towards this woman. I'd say it's probably a safe bet that the girl bonded with her natural mother rather than this other woman who was just "playing" mommy.

What is this "just a friend of her mom" crap? The two women were married, made a nursery together, changed diapers together, got up 2 am for feedings, ooohed and aaahhhed of over the first smile, first crawling, first steps.

How do YOU know this other woman did all that? Maybe she didn't give two shits about the kid, ignored her, mistreated her, and that might be why the girl's real mother left.

Or she MIGHT have been as you say, thing is, the girl is SEVEN YEARS OLD at this point, and should not be forced to live with a woman who is NOT related to her in any way, especially one who MAY want her for unsavory sexual delights.

That's a sad commentary if you think that dad's can't get action for their parental rights in court.

In interstate matters, women can kidnap children to other states and there is not ONE thing the government will do to recover them, well not in USUAL cases that is...

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-01-01   16:43:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

How do YOU know this other woman did all that? Maybe she didn't give two shits about the kid, ignored her, mistreated her, and that might be why the girl's real mother left.

That would have come out in court and the court would have decided for mommy on the run. The court found the ex-wife to be FIT to parent. Mommy on the run had no case other than "newly minted Christian" which didn't get her too far.You simply do not have any evidence to substantiate your opinions, yet you keep making them over and over again to the giddy delight of AKA Stone.

Lucky you to have a new admirer.: P

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   16:48:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

over again to the giddy delight of AKA Stone.

When referring to me get it right. There are spaces between the K and the A's. Thank You in advance.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-01   16:50:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

When referring to me get it right. There are spaces between the K and the A's. Thank You in advance.

lol........this will be at the top of my priorty list.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   16:58:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

lol........this will be at the top of my priorty list.

Thank you. Appreciated.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-01   16:59:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 116.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 116.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]