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: 4902
Comments: 157
Written by Rebecca Terrell 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.
Former Lesbian Couple Battles Over Child Custody
Thursday, 31 December 2009 01:00
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 150.
#4. To: farmfriend (#0)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A quick Google search proves you wrong...
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.
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.
What evidence, your words? Are you a parent, or do you just pass judgement on them?
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.
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?
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.
WTF. Now that your secret is out... I might flirt with you.
Caution fellas, you in particular, Armadillo. The link may provide us with a clue to Ms. abraxas' unique perspective. ;-)
#151. To: iconoclast (#150)
lol.....iconoclast, if you wish to know where I picked up this handle all you had to do was ask. When I logged onto 4um initially, I happened to be reading Jung's Seven Sermons of the Dead. By the Seventh sermon, the meaning is clear. All this projection as to what Abraxas is or is not, the fear and the confusion, it's all within every human. Man can't overcome what he refuses to accept or continually projects blame onto others and that's the main gist of the Seven Sermons. Abraxas is a scapegoat. Other legend has it that Abraxas is the Lord of the frogs and I've always been fond of frogs. Frightening, eh?
I was planning to post a harsh refutation of everything Abraxas believes, but I guess I wont. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I try to be nice to women. Just kidding. Abraxas is still Abraxas regardless of genital configuration.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestMiller's appeals in both states were unsuccessful, but she remained in contempt. As a result, in November the court awarded Jenkins sole custody.
#5. To: abraxas (#4)
She had a child with the woman.
#6. To: James Deffenbach (#5)
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.
#49. To: abraxas (#6)
The child was conceived in a legal marital union, granting parental rights.
#51. To: FormerLurker (#49)
What ever happened to the concept of doing what's best in the interest of the child?
#56. To: abraxas (#51)
(Edited)
The time to think about that is PRIOR to having the child
#57. To: FormerLurker (#56)
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.
#60. To: abraxas (#57)
(Edited)
#63. To: FormerLurker (#60)
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.
#68. To: abraxas (#63)
There is no evidence to support this idiotic statement.
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.
#72. To: FormerLurker (#68)
There is no evidence to support this idiotic statement.
#77. To: abraxas (#72)
EVIDENCE FOR THIS CASE is the request at hand.
#80. To: FormerLurker (#77)
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.
#82. To: abraxas (#80)
There is mounting evidence that mom on the run isn't all that stable or rational or intelligent.
#84. To: FormerLurker (#82)
What evidence, your words?
#117. To: abraxas (#84)
Yes, I'm a parent.
#119. To: iconoclast (#117)
What is your gender?
#125. To: abraxas (#119)
Female.
My preference is men.
I also thought you were male.
You post like a man. ;)
#150. To: Armadillo, ALL (#125)
(Edited)
Now that your secret is out... I might flirt with you
Replies to Comment # 150.
#153. To: iconoclast, farmfriend (#150)
Caution fellas, you in particular, Armadillo.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 150.