Custody battle a stage for homosexual agenda?
It’s pretty much a given that in custody cases the biological mother gets the child, right? So why on earth, in this lesbian custody case, does the ex-girlfriend get the child? It boggles the mind that people can be so selfish and disinterested in what is best for the child. Perhaps, as Matt Staver contends, this is a means of publicity for the homosexual agenda.
Charlie Butts – OneNewsNow -
The clash in a Vermont-versus-Virginia lesbian custody case has found its way back into court. (See earlier article)
Lisa Miller was involved in a Vermont civil union with Janet Jenkins. The former birthed a daughter, Isabella, and after the relationship between the two women ended, Miller, a born-again Christian, moved to Virginia with the child. Jenkins soon sued for custody rights.
A Vermont court recently ordered Miller, the biological mother, to turn her daughter over to Jenkins, and Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel argued before a Virginia court that the Vermont court order should not be honored.
“This case pits Virginia and Vermont against one another with regards to the marriage laws, and Virginia has some of the strongest marriage laws in the country recognizing only marriage between a man and a woman and also banning and making void…any civil union or right arising from a same-sex civil union,” explains Staver.
No found record shows that Jenkins has had any contact with the child over a period of several years, so Staver concludes the true purpose of the lawsuit is to force recognition of homosexual unions on states where it is not legal.
Continue reading: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=813398
Loading ...
The reason that Jenkins didn’t have contact with the child was because Miller didn’t allow it, despite court orders requiring her to do so. Jenkins legally adopted the child before the couple split up.
That is good to know. I figured there had to be more to it, but, nevertheless, why shouldn’t the biological mother have custody? Is there some sort of mental or other condition we don’t know about?
Awarding full custody to a nonbiological parent is out of the ordinary. But the circumstances of this case are far from ordinary.
After having previously found Lisa Miller-Jenkins (the biological mother) in contempt of court on eight separate occasions for refusing to permit visitation by Janet Miller-Jenkins (the nonbiological mother) and having warned Lisa that she risked losing custody if she continued to prevent the child and Janet from seeing one another, the family court concluded that it was in the child’s best interest to award Janet sole custody because only she would facilitate contact with both parents.
Why did Lisa not want Janet to see the child? Was it just stereotypical break-up spite, or did she have good reason?
I can’t speak for Lisa, but my research into the case seems to indicate that she was motivated by, as you say, “break-up spite.” Mostly I feel bad for the kid: she has a right to a relationship with BOTH of her legal parents.
I agree. And I would think most especially her real mom. She would also benefit from a good male role model/father figure for a well-balanced upbringing, but that’s a whole other can of worms.
By the way, I’ve enjoyed this. Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the case.
Syd
I think you are mistaken: there was no adoption in this case. If there had been, the case would have been open and shut. The facts of the case are: they had a civil union in VT. One social worker told them they really ought to do a second party adoption, but they, for whatever reason, did not do so. When the case first broke, they consulted an attorney, who turned out to be a gay activist attorney. She told them that having a civil union meant they didn’t need to do an adoption. In any case, no adoption was ever done.
Also, the mother is perfectly fit. No contrary allegation has ever been made. Also, the child has had some unsupervised, overnight visits with Janet. She comes home unhappy.
Hi Jennifer. Thanks for catching my error: you are correct, there was no adoption in this case.
What’s interesting is that the fairly conservative Virginia Family Court recognized Janet as a legal parent. Here’s a excerpt from the ruling:
“Many factors are present here that support a conclusion that Janet is a parent, including, first and foremost, that Janet and Lisa were in a valid legal union at the time of the child’s birth. The other factors include the following. It was the expectation and intent of both Lisa and Janet that Janet would be Isabelle’s parent. Janet participated in the decision that Lisa would be artificially inseminated to bear a child and participated actively in the prenatal care and birth. Both Lisa and Janet treated Janet as Isabelle’s parent during the time they resided together, and Lisa identified Janet as a parent of IMJ in the dissolution petition. Finally, there is no other claimant to the status of parent, and, as a result, a negative decision would leave IMJ with only one parent. The sperm donor was anonymous and is making no claim to be Isabelle’s parent. If Janet had been Lisa’s husband, these factors would make Janet the parent of the child born from the artificial insemination.”
As to whether Lisa Miller is a fit parent: in my book, ignoring court-mandated visitations with your child’s other parent isn’t in the best interests of said child. The Vermont Court agrees; that’s why it shifted custody to Janet Jenkins.
From the start, Janet sought only to have visitation and some parental rights; it was Lisa’s unwillingness to accept anything but sole custody that turned this case into a marathon.