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: 2560
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 # 57.
#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.
#58. To: abraxas (#57)
So did you also approve of the way Elian Gonzalez was snatched up from his loving family here in the US and whisked off to Cuba?
Do you think snatching up this little girl from her real mother and handing her to a practicing lesbain with NO EMOTIONAL TIE to this child will make her happy and well adjusted?
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.
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.
Replies to Comment # 57. 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.
#59. To: abraxas (#57)
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.
#60. To: abraxas (#57)
(Edited)
End Trace Mode for Comment # 57.