December 29, 2009 6:30 PM
Lisa Miller ordered to give up daughter, disappears with her
Breaking news:Vt. judge: Birth mom must give child to ex-partner
MONTPELIER, Vt. - The birth mother of a 7-year-old Virginia girl must transfer custody of the child to the woman's former lesbian partner, a Vermont judge ruled, adding that it seems the woman has "disappeared" with her daughter.
Vermont Family Court Judge William Cohen ordered Lisa Miller of Winchester, Va., to turn over daughter Isabella to Janet Jenkins of Fair Haven at 1 p.m. Friday at the Virginia home of Jenkins' parents.
But in the Dec. 22 order denying Miller's request to delay the transfer of Isabella, Cohen wrote: "It appears that Ms. Miller has ceased contact with her attorneys and disappeared with the minor child."
Miller and Jenkins were joined in a Vermont civil union in 2000. Isabella was born to Miller through artificial insemination in 2002. The couple broke up in 2003, and Miller moved to Virginia, renounced homosexuality and became an evangelical Christian.
Cohen awarded custody of the girl to Jenkins on Nov. 20 after finding Miller in contempt of court for denying Jenkins access to the girl.
Read more at Yahoo
Update: Please comment ONLY after reading all comments so far. I will not publish redundant comments.
Posted in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
Makes me wonder what reason the birth mother has for fleeing with the child. What other issues were there that warrant her not wanting to allow access to her child by the ex-lover. And what in God's name makes a lesbian, that did NOT give birth to said child, believe she has "rights" to the child? Makes me really believe that the lesbian is doing this all to "make a point" and showcase some messed up perspective on perceived homosexual rights, and in the mean time, the child is the one being used and abused by the homosexual pushing an agenda. Why not leave the child with the birth mother if there is no danger to the child's life? So it makes me really wonder if the lesbian ex-lover is just pissed off and doing this for a show.
Posted by: dirtdartwife | December 29, 2009 7:24 PM
How utterly absurd that a judge would give custody to an ex "spouse" who has no blood relation of any kind with the child rather than to her own mother. My prayers are with Lisa Miller. May God protect her and her child.
Posted by: Kim | December 29, 2009 8:06 PM
I'm so sorry for this girl.
Posted by: Julana | December 29, 2009 8:17 PM
Seems like you all are saying an "adoptive" non blood mother has less maternal rights/instincts than a birth mother? This actually sounds pretty evangelical. Perhaps the child SHOULD be mainly w/ the birth mother, but southern courts don't generally favor that a birth mother would not have a child unless they felt she was really unstable. It frankly sounds off to have a child in a lesbian marriage and then relinquish basically one's entire identity AND deny the other mother visitation rights, in an evangelican (IMO) cult like atmosphere? Oi vey. I hope this child can have both parents, if both can love and provide.
[Maggles, this was not decided in a southern court but in a Vermont court, where Janet Jenkins lives.]
Posted by: maggles | December 30, 2009 1:02 AM
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Or in this case, a woman scorned when her partner becomes a Christian, gives up homosexuality and decides to raise her young daughter not to approve of her former lifestyle. Can't have that, now can we?
The former lesbian partner, Janet Jenkins, lived with the child for barely a year. There is no established relationship that the child can remember, and no biological relationship. Jenkins never legally adopted the child, and neither Vermont nor Virginia had any state laws regarding custody for lesbian partnerships at the time.
This activist judge is trying to apply laws which were originally written by state legislatures for heterosexual marriages. To try and apply these laws to same-sex partnerships is an abuse of the law. If the people of any state want to apply the same divorce and custody standards to same-sex unions as they do to heterosexual marriages, it is the job of the people’s representatives, the legislature, to create such laws.
Until then, judges are to interpret the laws on the books AS THEY STAND, not “read into them”, re-apply them to different types of relationships, or legislate from the bench!
This is the mess we’ve created by trying redefine marriage as anything that makes the adults happy. Children are caught in the crossfire.
The purpose of marriage has always been to create a stable home in which the biological children of said marriage could be raised and protected. Every study confirms that children do best when raised in a stable home with both of their biological parents. The more we tinker with this model to try and accomodate every adult impulse, the more we damage children in the experiment.
Posted by: Rachel | December 30, 2009 3:14 AM
This happens many times in heterosexual marriages (often involving divorce and re-marriage). Never makes a blip on the Evangelical News Network. Wonder why?
[Devo - it's always nice to hear from you. First of all, I am a Catholic rather than an evangelical.
Second of all, this was a landmark case in that our 50 states are not in agreement over same-sex marriage and it is creating confusion as interstate issues are causing unprecedented problems. In Virginia - where both women lived before going to Vermont to get hitched, and where Lisa Miller lives now - same-sex marriage is not recognized, therefore there have been some legal questions as to whether rulings by the Vermont Family Court can be carried out by force here.
I guess it makes a blip - not just on the Evangelical News Network, but in the Tired Old Media like Time and Newsweek - for the same reason that school desegregation or Obama killing a fly in the White House (remember that, captured for immortality on YouTube): because it is newsworthy.
If you were trying to make a point, I fear it was not made.]
Posted by: Devo101 | December 30, 2009 10:12 AM
So a married couple can't have children due to the man being infertile. (maybe they shouldn't bother because the child won't do as well as if they both contributed the DNA and they know it) Instead they opt to have the wife go through insemination. A year later the wife divorces the husband flees to a state that she perceives will favor her, denies him any visitation, poisons the child against him, while the "father" continues to pay child support and fight for the right to see his non biological child. Should biology win out because it sounds like that is what you all are arguing for? Or do you think it is different in the above case because they are "normal". We should at least be ideologically consistent particularly with regards to the law, if you don't think the ex partner deserves any rights neither does the guy above.
Lisa Miller is going to get a kidnapping rap and is guilty of parental alienation. You don't have to like the players, you can favor the christian over the homo but that is what this case amounts too. It is particularly sad for the child .
[As I pointed out in Devo's comment, this is unprecedented. Your analogy fits only to a point - and that is that some states recognize same-sex marriages and some don't.
While like many people, I wish that Lisa and Janet had handled things differently, the fact is that we are left with a little girl who has virtually no connection to Janet Jenkins - who many feel is pressing this case only to score a political victory. If Janet truly loved her, she would not cause further trauma to an already injured little girl.
I am siding with Isabella and no one else.]
Posted by: cmh | December 30, 2009 11:04 AM
Surely there are similar precedents to draw upon involving hetro couples. Namely, situations where the mother's male partner/husband is not the biological father, and has not adopted the child, but at some point had a supportive relationship to the child as a stepfather.
I can think of anecdotal cases involving people I've known (in which case the former stepfather has no rights), but I'm not a legal scholar so I'd appreciate any info on the matter. Anyone?
[For the third time, we are in uncharted territory because some states recognize same-sex marriage, and some don't.
What people need to be focused on at this point is thebest interest of the child - not punishing Lisa or avenging Janet.}
Posted by: Brad | December 30, 2009 11:20 AM
The former partner has no genetic tie, nor any legal one, via adoption. The child has no memory of any relationship with said former "partner". Given what I have read of this former "relationship" between the two women, with physical and emotional abuse and manipulation on the part of Ms Jenkins, I can well understand why Ms Miller would run. I would too, to protect my child.
Many prayers for Isabella.
Posted by: Rachel | December 30, 2009 5:33 PM
"Seems like you all are saying an "adoptive" non blood mother has less maternal rights/instincts than a birth mother?"
Maggles, since there was no adoption in this case, you clearly misunderstand the point.
Adoption is an act of love and compassion for a child who would not otherwise have a stable home or family. An adoptive parent who is willing to go through that process has demonstrated their level of commitment and bonding to that child.
Jenkins never adopted Isabella, nor demonstrated a commitment to anything other than making her former partner's life a legal hell. She doesn't call, write, send cards or gifts, or attempt to build relationship with the child in any meaningful way. One would think, if she truly had a "maternal bond" with the child, she could exert herself at least that much.
Posted by: Rachel | December 31, 2009 3:04 PM
Holy cow! This is the craziest thing I ever heard! But we should have KNOWN this was coming. That's what happens when we, the creation, tamper with God's, the CREATOR, work and plan! You know, if I thought the non-biological "mother" truly cared for the child, and longed to see her, etc...then I would agree to allowing visitation. EVEN though my belief is that homosexuality is NOT God's plan...still...a child who grew up for X # of years knowing two parents, and then being cut off from one...not fair to the child. But apparently this is not at ALL the case. I would RUN as fast and as far as I could before I would allow my precious child to be apparently "used" as a pawn. My heart breaks for this little one. And, BTW...what the heck is evangelical, anyways? Don't misread me...I know the standard definition. I just get so darn tired of labels! To me...someone is "evangelically minded" if they LOVE the Lord God with all their heart, and wish that EVERYONE could have that relationship, too! I truly think these terminologies are so misued! Ya won't find it in the Bible! :)
Blessings...Nancy in CT
Posted by: Nancy | January 13, 2010 6:35 PM
It should be noted that Miller complied at first with the visitations (after years of Jenkins completely ignoring Isabella.) She ceased allowing visitation after her daughter began coming home after these visitations talking about killing herself after repeatedly being forced by Jenkins to take baths with her, both being naked together in the tub. Remember that Jenkins is pretty much a complete stranger to Isabella. I don't know what may have occurred during these baths. The judge refused to look into the matter and simply ordered that the visitations continue. And now we are here at this point where a Christian mother and her Christian daughter are forced to flee due to persecution.
[In all fairness, I must point out that these are allegations and that it is very common in custody battles for one side to accuse the other of this kind of stuff. Although I believe Isabella should be with her biological mother, and do believe that Janet's interest is agenda-driven, I think it is appropriate to maintain skepticism about these charges.]
Posted by: Robert | January 18, 2010 11:29 PM
