Liberal Vermont Judge Forces Ex Lesbian to Give Up Child

This AFA interview of Lisa Miller is an eye-opening event. She tells the whole story, and it is a trainwreck, from the time a mental health worker told her that she was a lesbian and "needed to explore the issue," to her now suffering the consequences of her adoption of the lifestyle.

And homosexual "recruitment" doesn't happen....

Here's another attendee for the party:

It's Christmas, for cripes' sake. Can't you guys give it a rest?

So many questions, so few answers.
Hard to see a hero(ine) in this story.

I believe this story - this had a LOT of parallels to my own, from the intense emotional abuse, to the woman originally saying she just wanted a divorce without custody, to the long protracted legal case that takes a terrific toll on everyone involved.

The court has failed here by any measure - by bringing the kid into a damaging situation, and even if they recognize the other person’s parenting claim solely based on the fact that they want to reenforce gay marriage, then there is NO grounds to do so when to pursue joint custody would be as damaging to the child has it has been. The circumstances of the long-distance co-parenting are absurd, and when that would be as harmful and disruptive to the child as it would be in this case, then we can see the willingness of the courts to put advancement of the gay political agenda before the well-being of children become most clear.

In New Hampshire parents of a home-schooled child were ordered to stop home schooling and attend public schools SOLELY BECAUSE the home schooling was deemed to be a Christian environment.

Make no mistake, individuals who hate Christianity and hate the moral culture of America have worked themselves into positions of influence. They hide their true intentions, and are quietly doing everything in their power to destroy the very social fabric of this country.

Let's forget about all of the lesbian stuff and Christian stuff for a moment. Have you ever heard of an instance where a judge ordered that the birth mother of a child give up that child to another person (other than the birth father)? It's obviously a political statement being made by the judge. There is also a deep fear in the gay community of people that choose to become "ex gay" - and this fuels the hatred of Christians.

We should "give it a rest" Naran? No, I don't think so. If it was up to these people, they would abolish Christianity and there wouldn't be a Christmas. Liberals are not to be let off the hook under any circumstances.

"where a judge ordered that the birth mother of a child give up that child to another person (other than the birth father)?"

As I said, so many questions.
How is this different from a situation where a married couple - man and woman - want to have children, but can't conceive due to father's infertility, so they do in vitro with a sperm donor? Aren't they both parents of the child produced in this way? If they divorce, does the father lose claim to the child because it is not his biological issue?
How did the lesbian couple pay for the procedure by which the child was conceived?
Are there property rights associated with the conception of the child?

Debating the issues is one thing. I just get tired of the eternal vitriol with regard to anything gay, and everyone gay.

Sometimes it really begins to feel like certain posters are vultures, just waiting for the next kill.

Let's forget about all of the lesbian stuff and Christian stuff for a moment. Have you ever heard of an instance where a judge ordered that the birth mother of a child give up that child to another person (other than the birth father)?

It is not unknown for a disenfranchised or estranged parent to subsequently request parental rights. In Maine at least, the court will generally review the situation granting favorable consideration (effectively presumptive, though I don't recall the exact wording in the law) to allowing the child access to both parents. This case is strikingly similar to some "father's rights" cases I have seen.

That presumption might be overcome if to do so would be particularly harmful to the child. Some judges in Maine, at least, will even ignore the presumption if they feel there is any significant conflict between the couples, since they (mistakenly) consider any conflict to be most detrimental to a child.

Where there was no prior relationship or bonding, to force a "co-parenting" situation when it would be as harmful to the child at every level as it is shown in this case. In difficult cases where there is an attempt to reunite an alienated parent we typically see a controlled long period of reunification, often starting with limited visits coupled with intensive therapy for both parent and child.

However, in this case we see, again, the liberal preference only to advance their agenda, regardless of who is hurt in the process.

It's "for the children" doncha know.

I have never heard of a birth Mother losing a custody case like this (unless she was unfit or something.) Why is she unfit?

Isabella has two moms. Miller made the decision to have a child with Jenkins....I am sure it is no different then if a parent adopts a child...that parent still has legal rights. Who will suffer the most? The little girl...She should not be torn like this...

A VERRRRRY interesting issue. Maine has THIS interesting case that is slightly on point.

http://www.courts.maine.gov/court_info/opinions/2004_documents/04me108le...

Interesting distinction in the Maine case: Bio-dad was known to the couple and approved sorta-dad having custody.

PS: I don't have a problem with a same-gender couple raising kids -- if they BOTH are REAL and LEGAL parents -- either adoptive, legally acknowledged or biological. I have a BIG problem with a BF or GF morphing their nonstatus into something legally recognized.

"She doesn't look gay......"

Apollo, the Gaydar expert

Naran "Debating the issues is one thing. I just get tired of the eternal vitriol with regard to anything gay, and everyone gay."

What "vitriol" was there before your cute bird picture? Maybe your your rush to defend habit is making you a little jumpy.

I'll let you figure it out, Bob.

I know you're capable.

"What "vitriol" was there before your cute bird picture? Maybe your your rush to defend habit is making you a little jumpy."

Interesting observation, Bob. Ms. Congeniality's dance around an answer is telling.

This is about two legal parents wanting to be part of their daughter's life.

Sounds more like one mother losing her child to a former, um, partner. Oh, what a tangled web we weave....

"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." - GKC, 4/19/30

Key word is "legal parents." It seems one of them never took a single step or effort toward being a real parent.

It's about the trophy.

And what better reason to be a "parent" so you can have a little trophy to boost your ego?

Great to be this type of person and have the law on your side.

"The supreme courts of Virginia and Vermont ruled in favor of Jenkins, saying the case was the same as a custody dispute between a heterosexual couple. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear arguments on it."

Well, that makes it OK, then.

God help us.

Makes what alright? The law is the law...These two entered into a legally binding relationship.

It's Christmas, for cripes' sake. Can't you guys give it a rest?

Christmas is one day, and it was the 25th. This thread was started on the 29th. Is your calendar having technical difficulties?

Nope - just my sensibilities... to some of us, Christmas lasts more than one day.

See "The Twelve Days of Christmas" in your local hymnals.

Makes what alright?

Makes putting the child through h#ll alright, at least as far as you and the gay advocates are concerned.

Sometimes the law is an ass, and this is one of those cases.

The Vermont parent wasn't involved with the child, and originally expressed no interest in parenting. To force long-distance co-parenting under these conditions doesn't make sense, and is extremely harmful to the child.

Tom, the birth mom could have handled this much better. She is putting this child through hell. They are both legal parents to this child.

If this was a mom denying a father visitation rights... you would be all too supportive towards the dad. This is no different.

It's absolutely different, Charlotte.

Do the math. No biological relationship to the kid. Didn't want it in the first place.

Although your tenacity in holding to a position is marginally admirable, it seems to me that you're either intellectually dishonest or not very bright.

I used to suspect the first. I'm beginning to suspect the latter.

If this was a mom denying a father visitation rights... you would be all too supportive towards the dad.

Clueless.

If a father never wanted anything to do with the child, threw the mother and child out of the house, and disowned the child.... then LATER when the divorce is wrapping up suddenly starts saying he wants a relationship with the child - well, I wouldn't be supportive of a sudden demand for custody in that case.

Which is the difference between me and the gay activists. I understand what the best interest of the child would be, and would support it. The gay activists, however, would be perfectly happy to sacrifice this child on the alter of gay "acceptance."

"This is about two legal parents wanting to be part of their daughter's life."

Really? I'd need to know a bit more about Vt. law to say that being the "legal partner" of another means that the PARTNER is a legal PARENT.

Partner ≠ Parent.

Sadly, courts lately have a NASTY propensity to granting any damned person with a plausible sob story the 'right' to interfere with the (real and constitutional) right of a parent.