[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: 2332
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 # 48.

#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  

even if she is still munching carpets, at least she isn't confused and vindictive.

uh, the fact, if it is a fact, that she is "still munching carpets" tells me that she is confused. As for vindictive, I would bet you anything I have that that is a major reason for the court case. And the fact was, and is, that no matter how long they might have stayed together, they would NEVER have had children together. Not unless you can show us how women no longer need men to father a child, or as one of my friends says, "do the roughin' in" (he's an electrician and when he sees a strikingly beautiful girl he would say something like, "I wouldn't mind helping her rough one in.")

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-12-31   19:40:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

uh, the fact, if it is a fact, that she is "still munching carpets" tells me that she is confused. As for vindictive, I would bet you anything I have that that is a major reason for the court case. And the fact was, and is, that no matter how long they might have stayed together, they would NEVER have had children together.

Initially, she only wanted the parental rights granted her under the state. No more, no less. She was there for the pregnancy and birth, planning on her role as a parent.

The other mom faught her all the way and the only argument she had was her newly minted Christianity. If she had anything at all to determine that Jenkins was unfit she would have presented it already......but there was none. I'd agree if the mom on the run could have proven that Jenkins was unfit, but she couldn't.

Personally, I find people that like men, then women, then men again more confused than people who stick with one gender. I don't think that taking the kid on the run shouts stability either.

Do you think that all non-biological parents should have their parental rights revoked if the biological parent converts to Christianity? Do you think that people should be excused from state laws because of religious conversion? Mom on the run went to court and lost her case.......she should have thought about that while planning a family with her lesbian wife.

abraxas  posted on  2009-12-31   19:49:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Do you think that all non-biological parents should have their parental rights revoked if the biological parent converts to Christianity? Do you think that people should be excused from state laws because of religious conversion? Mom on the run went to court and lost her case.......she should have thought about that while planning a family with her lesbian wife.

When a person realizes that they have made a mistake would you condemn them to live forever with that mistake? I wouldn't.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2009-12-31   21:06:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

When a person realizes that they have made a mistake would you condemn them to live forever with that mistake? I wouldn't.

She doesn't have to live forever with the woman she is now divorced from, but she does need to comply with the state laws where she opted to tie the knot and bring a baby into this world.

Does the other mother have no rights simply becuase she is gay? Why does mom on the run feel the need to omit this persom whom she deemed a fit parent from the life of this child? Could it be because she wants to keep her lesbian life a secret?

She needs to buck up and live up to her agreements and the orders of the court. She only lost custody because she refused to comply with visitation and allow the other mother to be the parent she wants to be. It's her own damn fault.....and she will have to live with the consequences for her actions.

You don't really believe that just because she is a newly minted Christian that she doesn't have to comply with her previous agreements or the court decisions that she requested be made, do you?

IMHO, she's making more mistakes. She should own up to her mistakes, not run from them with the child.

abraxas  posted on  2009-12-31   23:55:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Does the other mother have no rights simply becuase she is gay? Why does mom on the run feel the need to omit this persom whom she deemed a fit parent from the life of this child? Could it be because she wants to keep her lesbian life a secret?

The woman had the child with a sperm doner. The second woman, while legally a spouse, is nothing to the child biologically.
She is the equivalent of a step parent.

In any other divorce, should the child go with its biological parent or its step-parent? Unless the biological parent is unfit, I see no reason why the non-biological parent has any claim on the child.

The mother fled with the child, probably for this reason.

Armadillo  posted on  2010-01-01   1:37:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

In any other divorce, should the child go with its biological parent or its step-parent? Unless the biological parent is unfit, I see no reason why the non-biological parent has any claim on the child.

In any other divorce, the non biological parent would have rights to the child. What about when adoptive parents divorce? Shall the child become a ward of the state because no biological parent is in the fight?

Unless the non-biological parent is deemed unifit, I see no reason why the biologcial parent should be the only parent with rights to parent.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   12:14:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Unless the non-biological parent is deemed unifit,

And that is the problem. Many people believe that being gay automatically makes them unfit. This is especially true when you coming from a religious stand point. There is some evidence, biased perhaps given the source, that children are more likely to suffer abuse in a gay household.

I have a hard time with the whole subject. I'm pro gay marriage when it is just about the couple but vote against it because it opens a can of worms when it comes to children. The baby sitter I had for my boys was gay. I'm not homophobic. I had no fear that he was going to "turn" my boys gay. I just think it is better to not go down that road as far as families are concerned.

farmfriend  posted on  2010-01-01   13:22:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Personally, I take the perspective of personal responsiblity. This person entered into a legal and binding agreement and she knew what that entailed. Then, she opted to bring a child into that union.

Now she needs to take responsibility for her choices. I completely disagree with her taking that child on the run. We shouldn't run from problems, especially when they are of our own creation.

I avoid that religious argument for the most part. Mostly, it's hypocritally finger pointing at one particular type of sinner while sinning in multiple other ways.

I too am comflicted about gays raising children, more so gay men than gay women which may be completely biased......but it's still true for me. However, I have little sympathy for a woman who moved to a state simply to marry her gay lover and then changes are mind after they opt to have a baby together.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   13:31:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

then changes are mind after they opt to have a baby together.

What grade are you in? Two women rubbing their tits and bushes together doesn't produce a baby.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-01   13:38:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Two women rubbing their tits and bushes together doesn't produce a baby.

Reading comprehension lacking, asswipe? I never said that it did. What I said was this former carpet muncher rushed to a state for the umbrella of gay marriage and opted to bring a child into that union. Now, she should comply with the laws of that state that was once so great to "allow" her to marry her lover.

The concept of personal responsibility for the choices one makes is obviously foreign to you. It's her bed and she should lie in it, not take a seven year old on the run to live as a fugitive. Some mother.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   13:48:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Reading comprehension lacking, asswipe? I never said that it did. What I said was this former carpet muncher rushed to a state for the umbrella of gay marriage and opted to bring a child into that union. Now, she should comply with the laws of that state that was once so great to "allow" her to marry her lover.

NO NO NO....This is what you said.

" I have little sympathy for a woman who moved to a state simply to marry her gay lover and then changes are mind after they opt to have a baby together. "

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-01   13:51:00 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

" I have little sympathy for a woman who moved to a state simply to marry her gay lover and then changes are mind after they opt to have a baby together. "

Yep that's what I said. This MARRIED couple opted for a sperm donor TOGETHER in a LEGAL and BINDING contract that states BOTH are parents of the child.

It has nothing to do with "rubbing tits" or munching carpets, moron. It has to do with two legal and consenting adults entering into a BINDING contract and bringing a child into the union.

Do you piss on your contractual agreements too? Do you rush to a state for the ability to enter into a contract then cry foul when the deal goes sour?

Like I said, poor kid.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   13:55:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Yep that's what I said. This MARRIED couple opted for a sperm donor TOGETHER in a LEGAL and BINDING contract that states BOTH are parents of the child.

It has nothing to do with "rubbing tits" or munching carpets, moron. It has to do with two legal and consenting adults entering into a BINDING contract and bringing a child into the union.

So you support people being to be able to make contracts that amount to child abuse? That's weirdo stuff.

Next you are going to tell me that a contract with a hitman is legally binding.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-01   14:19:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So you support people being to be able to make contracts that amount to child abuse? That's weirdo stuff.

Next you are going to tell me that a contract with a hitman is legally binding.

She went to that state to for that legally binding contract. If she was a child abuser when she was munching carpets and had that baby in womb, she's still the same damn abuser today.

Oh wait, newly minted Christianity converts abusers........eyes rolling.

Dead men don't tell tales. If the person is dead and the money changes hands the contract was binding. Maybe not legally, but certainly binding.

The courts found no evidence the former wife was unfit to parent. This is your contention based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER. Just because you believe that all gays are child abusers doesn't make it a fact.

abraxas  posted on  2010-01-01   14:31:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You don't get it. Having a child raised by a queer is child abuse. It is emotional abuse.

I don't think all queers abuse kids physically.

I'm saying the law is wrong. People with good morals know that.

I'm saying that there should be no such thing as gay adoption. It is a disqualifier to raise kids. If you don't understand that then you obviously have major morality problems.

Laws are supposed to be based on right and wrong....morals.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-01   14:35:40 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

You don't get it. Having a child raised by a queer is child abuse. It is emotional abuse.

And you know this how? Where is your proof?

farmfriend  posted on  2010-01-01   14:38:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

And you know this how? Where is your proof?

How do you know it is wrong to steal or to kill someone? Where is your proof?

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-01   14:40:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

That's not an answer.

farmfriend  posted on  2010-01-01   14:41:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#85. To: farmfriend (#48)

It is an answer, and a question. Your just stunned because it has left you showing yourself as an utter fool on this matter.

You do not understand the laws of nature and natures God.

It is not my job to educate you.

A K A Stone  posted on  2010-01-01 16:19:26 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]