Vt. judge: Birth mom must give child to ex-partner

[Tab]

Source: Associated Press

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.

The judge said the only way to ensure equal access to the child was to switch custody. He also said the benefits to the child of having access to both parents would be worth the difficulties of the change.

Mathew Staver, Miller's attorney, declined through a spokeswoman to comment on the case.

A listing for Lisa Miller in Winchester, Va., says the phone line has been temporarily disconnected at the customer's request.

Jenkins' attorney, Sarah Star, said she hopes Miller is simply not communicating with her attorneys but plans to comply with the order.

"It is Ms. Jenkins' intent when she has custody of Isabella to allow as liberal contact as is possible with her other mother," Star said Tuesday.

When Cohen dissolved the civil union, he awarded custody to Miller but granted liberal visitation rights to Jenkins.

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.

If Miller does not turn over Isabella, the most likely scenerio is that she would be held in contempt of court and a warrant would be issued for her arrest, said Cheryl Hanna, a professor of constitutional law at Vermont Law School.

"I think the underlying thing is the fact that they are a lesbian couple doesn't mean that the court's going to treat this any differently than if they were a heterosexual couple," she said.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lesbian_custody

[IndianaGreen]

1. Ahhhh, just like hetero couples

Nothing like seeing marriage at work! This is the whole idea of marriage equality, that LGBT couples get to enjoy the fruits (and the thorns) of marriage just like everyone else does.

Big mistake to abduct a child during a divorce.

[WriteDown]

4. But if this was a father trying to get custody from the mother then...

I doubt the courts would be nearly as understanding.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Men and women should be treated alike by the courts

I said "should" because I know that we haven't quite made it there yet.

[WriteDown]

7. Right you are. nt

[Darth_Kitten]

6. In what sense?

:shrug:

[WriteDown]

8. For s father to actually get full custody from a mother....

It almost takes an act of Congress. Seen it first hand.

[winyanstaz]

20. Fact is...Fathers that fight for custody usually can win.

It all depends on the curcumstances...as to who is the better parent...who the child has bonded with the most, etc.
My niece is now in a custody battle and so far..the dad has won...even though he beat the crap out of my niece when she asked for a divorce while the baby was in her arms.
I think full custody hurts children...when at all possible both parents should be involved and it should be equal custody IMO.

[Tab]

26. No, you just have to be prepared, but it depends on what you mean by "Full Custody"

I'm a single father (well, since re-married, but I went through all this stuff prior to my new-improved relationship). It's changed, actually since my filing (this was in 2001, my son was 5).

I got full physical custody, she got visitation. He lives with me, we put him through school, fund everything, etc.

She does, however, have shared legal custody. She can make medical decisions on his behalf, needs to be consulted for certain legal things, etc.

My state has changed the definition of shared parenting and, honestly, I don't know how they split it up, but it used to be that TRUE full custody meant physical AND legal custody and the other parent had zero rights. My experience is that courts are reluctant to remove parental rights (except in the case of an obviously deficient parent), but are much more willing to grant sole physical custody to the primary (or better, if differences are extreme) caretaker. I didn't bother trying to remove her parental status altogether, but I was damn well going to get sole physical custody, and I did. He's a sweet, loving child, and it was the best decision I ever made (for comparison, she had a child from her first marriage, and created lots of psychological problems - he eventually went to live with his father in Europe.

[No Elephants]

44. Sorry, but that simply is not so.

Fathers don't always want full custody, either. If someone is going to stay home while someone else goes to work, the someone who goes to work is still likelier to be the father. Society has not completely shifted to equality of opportunity for both genders in the workplace. Most cases involve joint custody, anyway. In some states, fathers get custody more often than mothers.

Try googling the subject.

[McCamy Taylor]

9. If the mom denied the dad court ordered visitation, the dad would get custody.

Courts are not amused by people who do not follow the rules.

[WriteDown]

10. Haha...

Yeah right! You'd have tons of dad's with their kids if that was the case.

I encountered a story very recently with older children. Mom told kids that she wanted to take them to the beach that weekend, but couldn't because it was dad's weekend. Dad was made to be the bad guy so eventually just let the kids go.

[Darth_Kitten]

17. Right, because when Dads automatically don't see their kids...

it's the Mother's fault?

How about Dad promises to see his kid on Xmas eve, but he arrives 3 days later?

Everybody has a story or knows somebody with one.

[WriteDown]

19. Huh?

Are you saying fathers are less likely to be good parents?

[LanternWaste]

25. Seems like...

Seems like many posters are relying merely on anecdotal evidence and basing conclusions of the court systems and parents off of that...

[grantcart]

37. anybody who consistently enters court having broken the courts rules

are termed to have "dirty hands" and will be disadvantaged.

The story in the article is about a parent that has broken off contact and is clearly avoiding the court, not a onetime disagreement about a trip to the beach.

[Rage for Order]

11. LOL!!!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I should tell my brother what you said. Maybe he can show your post to the courts in the Santa Rosa area and actually get to see his kids! And to think, after all these years all he had to do was appeal to the court's sense of fairness!

:rofl:

[WriteDown]

13. I know...

I literally laughed out loud when I read that.

[rebecca_herman]

15. I don't agree with that either

Instead of "punishing" the disobeying parent the one who is punished the most is the child who loses their home. Ugh. I'm sick of people who would tear their child away from their life just to get revenge at their former spouse/partner/boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever.

[Darth_Kitten]

16. They don't seem to care much if the parent doesn't pay support..

n/t

[truedelphi]

12. In many areas in the nation, it all depends on who is the richer

Of the two parents.

In Marin County, the more well off parent can easily get a judge to rule that the other partner is mentally ill and have them forced to bear the cost of supervised visits. There was one case, wherein the mother was deemed unfit. And despite her pleas that her daughter had been sexually abused by the husband, she ended up in jail after taking the minor child out of state. (Considered kidnapping.)

The woman would perhaps still be in jail except for the major mistake the father made - he ended up killing his second partner - and that made the County re-examine her case.

[Le Taz Hot]

39. The first and only time

that you and I have ever agreed on anything on this board. The inequality against men in child custody cases is unconscionable and one in which redress is long overdue.

[No Elephants]

43. Courts frequently award custody to fathers.. It isn't 1952 anymore.

[MNDemNY]

2. The ruling seems sound, I hope they can find the girl.

[IndianaGreen]

3. There are about 350,000 child abductions in the US every year

Of the approximately 350,000 cases of child abduction that occur in the United States every year, 10,000 of them involved American children held by the non-custodial parent in a foreign country.

[rebecca_herman]

14. Selfish stupid adults the both of them as far as I am concerned

Bio mom should have followed visitation. But her former partner is being selfish too. The child has never lived with her. The child has no attachment to her, no memories of her. The child only knows the home she has with her biological mother. I would feel the same way if this was a hetero couple. Stop trying to get revenge on each other and think of the poor child. A 7 year old little girl doesn't deserve to be torn away from the only home and parent she knows just because the adults in her life were morons. I cannot agree with the judge's decision, I don't think it puts the child first, it is supposed to "punish" the mother for not obeying visitation? Well too bad, because the one it punishes the most is the *innocent* child who didn't ask to be born into a relationship with two people who hate each other too much to put her first.

[Tumbulu]

18. I agree with you absolutely. (nt)

[rebecca_herman]

21. amazed to see one person agrees with me

since every single person in the other thread on this dispute disagreed with me. That because the bio mom refused visitation, that must be the overwhelming consideration above anything else, that there is no possibility the child's best interests are not being considered by making her live with the bio mom's ex who is emotionally a stranger to her.

[JoeyT]

22. "Refused visitation"?

The mother disappeared with her. Kidnapping is just about one of the highest end felonies a person can commit.
If she'd committed armed robbery do you think she should retain custody? Especially since it's entirely possible she may do jail time over it?

[hughee99]

30. Can a custodial parent "kidnap" their own child?

Yes, not allowing court ordered visitation is certainly an issue, but is it "kidnapping"?

[Tumbulu]

24. A child is not chattel

it has feelings and should not be shunted back and forth between homes so that the parents get to enjoy the child's company or participate in it's life. This damages any child who goes through it. It is abusive to consider taking her away from her current home (unless she is being abused there and one could argue that fundamental Christianity is abuse). Especially as this is just when they start school- which is very hard on a child with so much to learn.

The decision of custody should be based on the child's best interest. Period.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. maybe its not in the childs best interest to live with a person who kidnaps

this is a form of kidnapping

[Tumbulu]

31. a mother who gives birth to a child

who keeps it is called a mother, not a kidnapper.

Why is any other person entitled to the child? Did someone pay the mother for her time and labor in producing the child?

This is paternalistic nonsense that the partner owns an interest in the child. It comes from livestock ownership law. The wife is owned by the husband and therefore the child is owned by the husband and the mother is just the incubator of the child.

This is wrong with heterosexual partners and is wrong in this case as well.

It is up to any mammalian mother to protect her child from harm. If she perceives that the child will be harmed by the former partner, then if she is a healthy functioning mammal, she will protect her child. Period end of story.

[lazarus]

32. so the mother should always have custody?

no matter what?

[Tumbulu]

33. did I say that?

Tell me why a child should be removed from it's mother unless the mother is somehow unfit?

In the case described in the OP it is about property rights. Based on the model that a husband has an ownership position of the child since he owns the wife and therefore her products.

[lazarus]

34. try proving she's unfit

you just about can't, in a lot of areas. Alabama, for one. In most areas the mother gets custody by default, even when the father has been very involved in the child's upbringing.

And you did say that. What model is child support based on, by the way? If the thing were stacked against mothers, why aren't male judges giving fathers an out on child support or giving them custody in record numbers?

[Tumbulu]

35. You are not addressing my point of where the idea a child is property

of the non bearing spouse came from.

[lazarus]

36. who said the child is anybody's property?

It's all about which parent is the most fit to raise the child. In an ideal world, equal shared custody would be the default position. Each parent has rights to the child.

Any other formulation makes the father nothing but a cash machine to subsidize the child's rearing. Why even bother with visitation?

[Tumbulu]

40. Why?

The mother actually produced the child.

If I spent a year knitting a sweater, wouldn't the sweater be mine?

A child needs stability in it's rearing, it is very disrupting to a young child to be one night in one house, one night in another, one day with the mother, one day with the father. Splitting the child up between the parents 50/50 is based on equal ownership of the offspring.

Equal shared custody may be some ideal for some parents, but it is is not at all the ideal for a young child. I know many a mom who has stayed in a bad relationship to protect her child from having to spend time without her with a dad who is either irresponsible, has drug/alcohol issues, or violence issues. And I have known of dad's who have stayed in bad relationships for the same reason, to protect their child.

I would say that a good 30% of the marriages that "stay together" are because a parent feels that it will be better able to protect it's child from the weaknesses/failings of the other parent by being in the house where the child lives all the time rather than making the child move back and forth.

The ideal is for the child to be with a primary caregiver, who is usually the mom- although if the dad has stayed out of the paid workforce to care for the children, then it is him. Ideally a child would stay with it's primary caregiver, the partner of the caregiver would support that partner in caregiving by earning the money to support the household.

[lazarus]

42. yes, the mother produced the child

that's why you seem to think the child is her property. But the father obviously has something to do with it, or child support wouldn't exist.

[No Elephants]

47. You're comparing a child to a sweater?

[No Elephants]

46. The child is not the property of either parent.

[No Elephants]

45. Sorry, but absconding with the child to avoid visitation is kidnapping, no matter which

parent does it.

The child is not the chattel of the mother, any more than the wife is the chattel of the husband.

[Hannah Bell]

23. The child has no memories of the former partner because the birth

mother took her to another state & denied the former partner access, which partner's apparently been fighting to get ever since, as witnessed by the fact that this case has reached the supreme court of two states & been appealed to the Supreme Court & refused. The birth mother kept appealing every time there was judgement against her & the SC refusal to hear was her last appeal.

So then she disappeared with the kid.

I'd say the selfishness is 99% on one side.

If I were the ex-spouse of a child it would be damned hard for me to give up all parental rights after being jacked around for years - because, by jacking me around, the mother created the situation where the child doesn't know me & i'm supposed to give up all contact for the good of the child = rewarding a bully.

the mother has created the situation where she, like you, can turn around & blame the person she's wronged for "disrupting the child's life, who knows no home but this & doesn't know you."

it's probably right that would be less disruptive & upsetting to the child, but it would sure be kick in the gut to any parent.

the ex was willing to share custody & visitation. The birth mother wasn't willing to allow the ex in the child's life *at all*.

Because she decided she wasn't gay & was "christian".

[La Lioness Priyanka]

27. maybe its fear that should she have access to the child, she'll do it again

or disappear w.the kid

though ideally parents should work this sort of shit out

[KamaAina]

29. Fundie family values

The couple broke up in 2003, and Miller moved to Virginia, renounced homosexuality and became an evangelical Christian.

Hope the kid's all right. :scared:

[TexasObserver]

38. That's the appropriate outcome.

Any parent who runs with the child during a custody battle is a kidnapper, and a child abuser.

This kind of misconduct cannot be rewarded. You run with a kid, you lose.

[JonQ]

41. That poor kid

She's going to be all kinds of screwed up.

A) divorced parents engaged in a bitter custody battle B) one is a lesbian the other is now (presumably) radically opposed to homosexuality and an evangelical, and C) her whole life story is being played out for the public.