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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

You’ve Never Seen THIS Side Of Donald Trump President Donald Trump Nominates Former Florida Rep. Dr. Dave Weldon as CDC Director Joe Rogan Tells Josh Brolin His Recent Bell’s Palsy Diagnosis Could Be Linked to mRNA Vaccine President-elect Donald Trump Nominates Brooke Rollins as Secretary of Agriculture Trump Taps COVID-Contrarian, Staunch Public Health Critic Makary For FDA F-35's Cooling Crisis: Design Flaws Fuel $2 Trillion Dilemma For Pentagon Joe Rogan on Tucker Carlson and Ukraine Aid Joe Rogan on 62 year-old soldier with one arm, one eye Jordan Peterson On China's Social Credit Controls Senator Kennedy Exposes Bad Jusge Jewish Land Grab Trump Taps Dr. Marty Makary, Fierce Opponent of COVID Vaccine Mandates, as New FDA Commissioner Recovering J6 Prisoner James Grant, Tells-All About Bidens J6 Torture Chamber, Needs Immediate Help After Release AOC: Keeping Men Out Of Womens Bathrooms Is Endangering Women What Donald Trump Has Said About JFK's Assassination Horse steals content from Sara Fischer and Sophia Cai and pretends he is the author Horse steals content from Jonas E. Alexis and claims it as his own. Trump expected to shake up White House briefing room Ukrainians have stolen up to half of US aid ex-Polish deputy minister Gaza doctor raped, tortured to death in Israeli custody, new report reveals German Lutheran Church Bans AfD Members From Committees, Calls Party 'Anti-Human' Berlin Teachers Sound Alarm Over Educational Crisis Caused By Multiculturalism Trump Hosts Secret Global Peace Summit at Mar-a-Lago! Heat Is Radiating From A Huge Mass Under The Moon Elon Musk Delivers a Telling Response When Donald Trump Jr. Suggests FBI recovers funds for victims of scammed banker Mark Felton: Can Russia Attack Britain? Notre Dame Apologizes After Telling Hockey Fans Not To Wear Green, Shamrocks, 'Fighting Irish' Dear Horse, which one of your posts has the Deep State so spun up that's causing 4um to run slow? Bomb Cyclone Pacific Northwest

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: 2243
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 # 140.

#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  

There is no evidence to support this idiotic statement.

A quick Google search proves you wrong...

Gay rights campaigner led a double life as leader of paedophile ring that carried out a catalogue of child abuse

A paedophile ring has been smashed after eight men were found guilty of a horrifying catalogue of more than 50 child pornography and abuse charges. Among the crimes was a shocking sexual attack carried out on a three-month-old baby boy by an executive adviser on child sex issues. James Rennie, chief executive of a publicly-funded gay rights group, was one of the men exposed yesterday as members of Scotland's biggest paedophile ring. Rennie, 38, molested the toddler son of unsuspecting friends - a little boy he had been trusted to babysit - recording the abuse and sharing it with other perverts. In the course of the police investigation, the boy's parents were forced to watch a video of their baby son being violated by Rennie.

Report: Pedophilia more common among 'gays'

The Problem of Pedophilia

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-01-01   15:50:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

There is no evidence to support this idiotic statement.

I'm asking you for the evidence in regards to THIS LESBIAN, not gay men who are parenting. As I previoulsy stated, I'm bias about gay men adopting and I feel it does put children at risk.

Now, cough up the evidence that this woman in this case is unfit to parent and intends to turn the little girl into a carpet muncher. The court couldn't find any evidence, but you continue to make these idiotic statements. EVIDENCE FOR THIS CASE is the request at hand.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   15:59:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

EVIDENCE FOR THIS CASE is the request at hand.

Common sense dictates that this little girl is better off with her mother rather than a stranger whom her mother used to have gay sex with.

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-01-01   16:11:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Common sense dictates that this little girl is better off with her mother rather than a stranger whom her mother used to have gay sex with.

Why? There is mounting evidence that mom on the run isn't all that stable or rational or intelligent.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   16:13:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

There is mounting evidence that mom on the run isn't all that stable or rational or intelligent.

What evidence, your words?

Are you a parent, or do you just pass judgement on them?

FormerLurker  posted on  2010-01-01   16:14:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

What evidence, your words?

Are you a parent, or do you just pass judgement on them?

Making her child a fugative. Showing her child that running from mistakes is the correct course of action. Uprooting this child from all the homes that she has known. Pushing religious fundamentalism on her child to atone for her own sins. Using her newly minted Christianity as an excuse to ignore the courts.

Yes, I'm a parent.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   16:17:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Yes, I'm a parent.

I'm arriving late, obviously.

But, thank you for that revelation.

Now how about a couple of more?

What is your gender?

What is your sexual preference?

What is your occupation?

iconoclast  posted on  2010-01-01   17:03:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

What is your gender?

What is your sexual preference?

What is your occupation?

Female.

My preference is men.

I don't see how my profession is relevant to this discussion.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   17:06:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't see how my profession is relevant to this discussion.

My guess was lawyer.

iconoclast  posted on  2010-01-01   22:04:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

My guess was lawyer.

Well, I agree that would be relevant to this discussion. I did work for a lawfirm for years, which impacts my perspective. I tend to look at the aspects of this case without the religious dogma and view Miller as using religious dogma to make her case, which is legally weak.

A few facts are pertinent. Miller moved to Virginia and filed suit AFTER Virginia initiated a law that specifically does not recogonize civil unions. Initially, she moved from Virginia to Vermont because Vermont recognized civil unions and allowed her to marry her same sex lover.

I say the initial move and contract entered into sets precedent. The two agreed on visitation and support initially. Jenkins paid child support to Miller prior to Miller filing for sole custody rights in Virginia. Miller cashed the checks. Miller also had Jenkins help pick out the sperm donor as well as help pay for the procedure and pregnancy.

Then she had a religious "conversion" and moved to a state that had a pending law to nullify the rights of her previously entered into civil union. She promptly filed to terminate the rights of her ex-wife. A lower court agreed, but a higher court went with Jenkins on appeal.

Miller states that Jenkins hasn't seen the child in years, but this is only due to that fact that Miller refuses to comply with the court order and visitation schedule. Now, due to her contempt of court sole custody of the child has been granted to Jenkins.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   22:34:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You are a classic example of why not to let women vote.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-01   22:41:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You are a classic example of why not to let women vote.

Why is that? Because I actually think state rights matter, unlike you who think people can hop from one state to the next to promote whatever legal case they might have pending.

Because you think that religious dogma makes a case? Oh, that's right, you think all laws are moral.......lol. All laws are connected to God, right? I think I need not present any further evidence on my case that you are not equipped with enough intelligence to determine who should be voting and who should not.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   22:46:31 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Your the moron who can't even tell me why murder and stealing is wrong.

You have made the case that you are a POS brain dead liberal and possibly a homosexual woman who goes down on little girls.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-01   22:48:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You have made the case that you are a POS brain dead liberal and possibly a homosexual woman who goes down on little girls.

What's your evidence of this asswipe? I'm no liberal. In fact, I am the one promoting RESPONSIBILITY for actions and contracts entered into. You, on the other hand, take the liberal argument that she doesn't have to live up to her obligations any longer because she has a new religion. What a pant load.

Maybe with all your anger toward homosexuals, it is you who are expressing your own short coming in regards to this issue. Look how emotional you get....lol. Having a tirade, spewing insults, making vulgar accusations in an attempt to piss me off (which isn't working dimwit).......it's all so Christian of you.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   22:53:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#142. To: abraxas (#140)

What's your evidence of this asswipe? I'm no liberal.

You are a liberal. By your support of queer "marriage" you have shown yourself to be a liberal. Quit pretending your not.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-01 22:55:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I am the one promoting RESPONSIBILITY

That is laughable. You are not promoting responsibility. No one who is responsible would support perversion of words. Of having kids raised by perverts. You are promoting perversion. You are promoting changing meaning of words to promote a queer agenda. You are promoting child abuse.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-01 22:57:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

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

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