Woman refuses child handover to former lesbian lover.

[ninetoes]

"MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — 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."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-lesbian-custody,0,4270754.story

[CatToy]

I remember this case it was very sad. She would have been better off if she did not try to denounce her relationship and alienate the child from her other mother. Now, she will be forced to give her up and share custody.
I doubt she will comply.
It will be interesting to see how Vt handles this because they will have to somehow get VA to order a warrant if she doesn't comply. I guess it would be Vt that would issue the warrant and then VA would have to somehow find her?
Usually other states don't get involved in family disputes. I'd hire a PI and make sure that the PI had her under surv for sure until that Jan1 date.
If Vt supreme court refused to hear the case, then would VA hear it?

alanna you are correct, it's more of a mess than it ever was!

[GossipGirl]

Here's an interesting story about a lesbian couple who split and the one woman refused to hand over the 7 year old who she kept when they split up. I believe it was a baby at the time, and the one who took her then denounced lesbianism, became Christian and I think is now married to a man.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34661539/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

The two are now missing.

GG

[GossipGirl]

OK, she's not married to a man but is an Evangelical Christian.
She was supposed to hand off the child whose custody she lost to the other woman Nov. 20 for not allowing visitation.
This child was born in 2002, and they split in 2003.
GG

[phylcore]

Who is the birth mother?TIA

[SavannahStar]

Take the lesbianism and Christianity out of it and it's just yet another story of an illegal abduction by one parent who was not awarded custody, isn't it? :confused:

[GossipGirl]

Miller is the birth mom and Jenkins is the partner.
I think they were up in VT when this happened, and Miller took the kid to VA and didn't let the other one see her.
I think.
'GG

[GossipGirl]

Take the lesbianism and Christianity out of it and it's just yet another story of an illegal abduction by one parent who was not awarded custody, isn't it? :confused:

Pretty much.
GG

[JennyM]

Take the lesbianism and Christianity out of it and it's just yet another story of an illegal abduction by one parent who was not awarded custody, isn't it? :confused:

Plus throw in legal adoption because without that the woman who abducted the child has no legal right to the child, does she?

[GossipGirl]

Good point. I wonder if Jenkins did indeed adopt the child. I assume so or this would all be moot.
Miller's on the run with the girl, so won't that end up being an Amber Alert and then kidnapping charges?
This is Sean Goldman all over again.
GG

[GossipGirl]

I bet that Miller didn't want the child to grow up knowing Mom had been a lesbian back in the day.
GG

[MissouriGMom]

Plus throw in legal adoption because without that the woman who abducted the child has no legal right to the child, does she?

Isn't Miller the one who took off with the child? She's the bio mom, right? If that's the case, I kinda understand how she must feel. The little girl was only about one when they split. She's been raising her. However, she needs to comply with the law, period. moo

[JennyM]

Isn't Miller the one who took off with the child? She's the bio mom, right? If that's the case, I kinda understand how she must feel. The little girl was only about one when they split. She's been raising her. However, she needs to comply with the law, period. moo

Miller gave birth to her but it says she was artificially inseminated. Was it her egg they used? If so, I think it's her baby, unless her partner adopted her legally. I just dunno.

[MissouriGMom]

Miller gave birth to her but it says she was artificially inseminated. Was it her egg they used? If so, I think it's her baby, unless her partner adopted her legally. I just dunno.

I really do feel sorry for Miller. I just wonder if Jenkin's has been a part of the little girl's life at all these past six years. I don't know, but it seems rather cruel to want to uproot this child from the only life she's known. But, we don't know all the facts.

[MissouriGMom]

The person awarded custody is not the biological parent, she is the recovering former lesbian. After reading the laws (http://www.sec.state.vt.us/otherprg/civilunions/civilunions.html#4) regarding civil unions in Vermont the non biological parent, still a lesbian, seems to be within her rights. I think the judge made the right decision. :shrug:

It might have been the right decision according to the law, but what about the child. Shouldn't they take into consideration what's best for the child? But, again, we don't know all the facts, so :shrug:.

[R~O~S]

Miller gave birth to her but it says she was artificially inseminated. Was it her egg they used? If so, I think it's her baby, unless her partner adopted her legally. I just dunno.


The child is the product of artificial insemination into a legal union in the state of Vermont. The child's state of residency and therefore the appropriate court in which to hear the case is Vermont.

This is no different than a child born via artificial insemination into a marriage, there's no need for adoption, the child of the marriage is the child of both parents.

Had the birth mother not kept the child from the estranged partner, she likely would have retained custodial custody. There was a visitation schedule she refused to honor (see paragraph 8 - 10 in OP link, AP article so no quoting allowed).

A lot more information on the sequence of events and the legal fight:

http://www.glad.org/work/cases/miller-jenkins-v-miller-jenkins/

Despite the simplicity of this core issue, the Virginia court and Lisa’s lawyers (from Liberty Counsel, one of the groups that attempted to undermine the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts) are determined to create specious complications. Under both federal and state law, when the court of one state has been validly presented with issues relating to child custody, that court keeps jurisdiction until it voluntarily releases the case. Despite the fact that the Vermont court has retained jurisdiction over the issue of both Janet and Lisa’s parental rights and responsibilities and has never relinquished jurisdiction, the Virgina court initially ruled that Lisa is the sole parent, and ignored the Vermont court’s visitation order, on the basis of Virginia’s stated policy of discrimination against civil unions.

Because Lisa failed to comply with the Vermont Family Court’s visitation order, the Vermont court held Lisa in contempt. Further, the Vermont court issued a ruling declaring Janet to be the girl’s legal parent, as the child was born while Janet and Lisa were legally joined in a civil union. Finally, the court rejected an attempt by Lisa to have the Vermont courts recognize and enforce the Virginia ruling declaring Lisa to be the sole legal parent. Lisa petitioned the Vermont Supreme Court which, in September, 2006 - in a tremendous victory for Janet and GLAD - upheld all three of these rulings. Furthermore, the Virginia Appellate Court has since decided that Virginia had no jurisdiction to entertain Lisa’s suit to be declared IMJ’s sole parent, and has ordered the Virginia Courts to comply with the Vermont visitation order. Lisa’s petition for review by the US Supreme Court was denied on April 30, 2007; she is currently seeking review in the Virginia Supreme Court.

This is a parental abduction pure and simple & they knew it when they ordered the turn over since she'd disconnected her cell phone and stopped communication with her attorney.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/30/crimesider/entry6037741.shtml

On Nov. 20, a Vermont family court judge awarded sole custody of Isabella to Jenkins after finding Miller in contempt of court for denying Jenkins access to the girl.

The handoff is scheduled for Friday, but Judge William Cohen now fears the birth mother "disappeared" with her daughter.

"It appears that Ms. Miller has ceased contact with her attorneys and disappeared with the minor child," Cohen wrote in an order denying Miller's request to delay the transfer.


So the judge in Virginia knew she was fleeing with the child over a month ago. Yet didn't put any warrant in place for her to appear, allowing her to leave the country, or simply establish a new identity and disappear, with the child.

All the while, the judge in Virginia knowing both the Vermont Supreme Court and the Virginia appellate court agreed, the correct venue for the case was Vermont. The standing order of sole custody to Jenkins by the Vermont Courts should have been enforced immediately. JMHO

[R~O~S]

My point is when people let left wing radicals pass these stupid politically correct feel good laws then you have to abide by them. Personally I feel the real mother should get custody, it's her child, this Heather has two mommies mantra is a joke and a lie, but what's that saying, you made your bed, now lie in it. The next Rosie's Family Cruise ought to be interesting.

She had custody, all she had to do was abide by the visitation schedule, but she refused. That's why custody was shifted to Jenkins.

[JennyM]

Thank you for taking the time to explain all that, ROS. Appreciate it.

[R~O~S]

Thank you for taking the time to explain all that, ROS. Appreciate it.

You're most welcome. I was appalled when I read it in November. I couldn't believe the judge set the turn over for such a distant date and then didn't put a warrant out for her to appear knowing she was already on the run.

Good luck to anyone trying to find that child. Miller's had ample opportunity to get established elsewhere guaranteeing there will be another court in another state, if not another country involved.

This isn't love, this is treating children like property & she does her child no favors regardless of how anyone may feel about Civil Unions.

In the end, unless Miller manages to avoid apprehension until the child is an adult, the child will be ripped from Miller and returned to Jenkins. The longer she keeps her from Jenkins, the more devastating that will be for the child.

If she does manage to avoid apprehension until the child is an adult and the child comes to the realization her entire life was a lie in adulthood, it will have a devastating impact on her relationship with Miller.

You'd think there would be some protocol in place to insure any couple, regardless of the make up of the union, is involved in a long term relationship before going forward with insemination.

Separating a year after baby was born tells me they had the baby to "hold the union together" (JMHO). Having a baby is never the way to hold a marriage together, in fact the stress level goes up when a baby is born to the point it will guarantee an already rocky situation is going to implode.

I wonder how they came to the decision this was something they wanted to do? It's not as if they didn't have to go to a bit more trouble than a traditional couple to accomplish it.

Was Miller saying she wanted to have a baby instead of saying she was rethinking her orientation? Did she know she wanted to leave & make dramatic changes to her life, but didn't have the guts to speak up, only to make matters worse by bringing a child into the world?

[Details]

Miller gave birth to her but it says she was artificially inseminated. Was it her egg they used? If so, I think it's her baby, unless her partner adopted her legally. I just dunno.When you are married, any children are both of yours - biology does not matter. If this were a married couple, and it was a husband - no one would question it - even if they had to use in-vitro and someone else's sperm or egg or both. It's their child, they were married, and they had a child together. The DNA is irrelevant.

[LisaM22]

Take the lesbianism and Christianity out of it and it's just yet another story of an illegal abduction by one parent who was not awarded custody, isn't it? :confused:

exactly....

[R~O~S]

Well, here's PROOF POSITIVE that Lesbians are not supposed to marry and have children because EACH AND EVERY heterosexual marriage was perfect, and never was there a custody dispute between a man and a woman married in a Christian church, now, was there? I mean, this is unique, and never happens for anyone else.

Oh wait........................I just heard of about 100 of these custody dispute cases for Christian married heterosexuals in the media in 2009.... Nevermind!


:confused: How in the world did you get any of that from this thread that stayed respectful and focused on the legal merits of the order?

[tiptop]

:confused: How in the world did you get any of that from this thread that stayed respectful and focused on the legal merits of the order?

I took Candy's post as tongue-in-cheek.

Many people use things like this as ammunition in the war against same-sex marriage. As if it never happens to straights. We are no different than everyone else; we will marry and divorce. We will have bitter disputes and custody issues. Being gay doesnt preclude any of those things. In the whole scheme of things, we are just like straight couples.

[ninetoes]

The only thing being gay does is to eliminate the possibility of two biological parents. I would think that is where the legal lines would become a bit hazy.
My question is, if the "other mother" hasn't had contact with the child since the split 6 years ago, would it not be very traumatic to be ripped away for the life she remembers and thrust into a world she is not used to?

Possibly it would, but again, it happens in other custody disputes.

[tiptop]

The only thing being gay does is to eliminate the possibility of two biological parents. I would think that is where the legal lines would become a bit hazy.
My question is, if the "other mother" hasn't had contact with the child since the split 6 years ago, would it not be very traumatic to be ripped away for the life she remembers and thrust into a world she is not used to?

Yes, IMO it would be traumatic to be taken like that. I would hope a good judge could sort it all out for the best. Thats what they are for.

Same thing as a man and a woman adopting a child from an orphanage or some such other situation. They may not be related to the child at all, yet if they divorce a judge should be able to figure out who the child would seemingly be better off with. Based on talking to the child (if old enough per the law), friends, family and the married couple.

[Details]

The only thing being gay does is to eliminate the possibility of two biological parents. I would think that is where the legal lines would become a bit hazy.
My question is, if the "other mother" hasn't had contact with the child since the split 6 years ago, would it not be very traumatic to be ripped away for the life she remembers and thrust into a world she is not used to?The legal lines aren't hazy at all. This happens for straight couples too - and there is no haze there. Many married couples have children that are no biological relation to one or more of the two parents - and they are still parents, and custody still goes, in all artificial insemination cases - to BOTH married partners.

[tiptop]

Possibly it would, but again, it happens in other custody disputes.

Indeed it does. And I hope this will not be used as a poster for anti-gay marriages.

[withay]

The only thing being gay does is to eliminate the possibility of two biological parents. I would think that is where the legal lines would become a bit hazy.
My question is, if the "other mother" hasn't had contact with the child since the split 6 years ago, would it not be very traumatic to be ripped away for the life she remembers and thrust into a world she is not used to?

But since the "other mother" has not had contact because the custodial parent has not been cooperating with visitation court orders, it is very similar to what happened with Sean Goldman. Having the custodial parent interfere with the other parent developing and/or maintaining a relationship with the child should not give the custodial parent MORE rights. The only reason the judge was transferring custody was because he thought that was the only way both parents would get to see the child. He said so himself in the court order!

Fairlady, Apparently you and I were thinking the same thing! Your post was not there when I started typing...

[aproudmom]

She had custody, all she had to do was abide by the visitation schedule, but she refused. That's why custody was shifted to Jenkins.

Thank you ROS. Appreciate it.