Hot Topic (11/26): Custody switched from biological mom to her lesbian ex-partner

[Cafe GroupAdmin]

Judge grants non-biological mom custody

A Rutland Family Court judge ordered a first-of-its kind parent custody change Friday in a child-visitation dispute involving a Virginia woman and her former lesbian partner who lives in Fair Haven.

In a 21-page order, Judge William Cohen granted sole custody of 7-year-old Isabella Miller to her nonbiological but court-recognized parent, Janet Jenkins.

Jenkins and her former partner — and Isabella's biological mother — Lisa Miller, who renounced homosexuality after the couple split in 2003, have been in and out of courtrooms in Vermont and Virginia for years arguing over visitation rights.

Cohen's decision doesn't appear to spell an end to the fight either — Miller's attorney said Friday that appeal arguments will be made on multiple fronts.

After finding Miller in contempt of court earlier this year for denying Jenkins access to Isabella, Cohen said he decided the only way to ensure the child equal access to both parents was to switch custody.

"The court concludes that it is in the best interest of (Isabella) that Ms. Jenkins exercise parental rights and responsibilities," the judge said. "This court stated that continued interference by Ms. Miller with the relationship between (Isabella) and Ms. Jenkins could lead to a change of circumstances and outweigh the disruption that would occur if a change of custody were ordered."

While making it clear that Miller had been warned of a possible custody change, Cohen said the switch wasn't intended to punish the Virginia woman. Instead, Cohen said the order was based on the well-being of Isabella whose biological mother has only brought her to two visits with her nonbiological parent during the last two years.

In the short term, the judge said the change would cause some disruption in Isabella's life as she would need to move to a new home, school and community. However, Cohen said the transition wouldn't be out of the norm for a 7-year-old.

He also said the benefits of having access to both parents would be worth the difficulties of change.

"In the long term, the change in custody will be in (Isabella's) best interests as she will have the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents," he said, adding that both parents were equal in terms of stability, financial resources, emotional availability and other considerations required for child rearing.

Where they weren't equal, he said, was in their willingness to work together. While Miller has repeatedly and consistently blocked Jenkins' access to Isabella, the judge said Jenkins has agreed to allow Miller access and would allow Isabella to continue to attend church events with her other parent.

Reached by telephone Friday evening, Jenkins said she wanted to do what was best for Isabella.

"I don't believe we need to be friends but I won't block her from Isabella," Jenkins said of Miller. "I'll definitely be supportive of them. I want my daughter to have both of her parents."

Jenkins said she's looking forward to New Year's Day when the custody switch is ordered to take place.

"Honestly, I'm just a mother who wants time with my daughter," she said. "I can't wait. I think my daughter will thrive here. I'm a stay-at-home mom with state licensed day-care so I will be here, and there will be built in playmates who are Isabella's age."

"I feel like all the ducks are lined up," she added.

But the custody battle appears far from over.

Miller's attorney, Mathew Staver, said Friday that Miller planned to fight for her daughter on two fronts: appealing Cohen's decision to the Vermont Supreme Court while continuing a battle in the Virginia Court of Appeals regarding the state's authority to enforce Vermont orders that conflict with Virginia's laws.

"We're certainly not happy with the order. I think Lisa is devastated that the court would grant custody to Jenkins — a person who Isabella doesn't know. The only person known to her is her mother," said Staver, who is the founder and chairman of the nonprofit Liberty Counsel. "We will ask the court to stay enforcement while the appeal moves forward. It's premature to set dates while the appeal is pending."

While the fight goes on, one legal observer said he believes Cohen's most recent decision will pave the way for future custody disputes involving same-sex couples.

"It's a very important decision that I think will be influential beyond the borders of the states where these cases have been argued," Carl Tobias, University of Richmond professor of law, said Friday in a phone interview from Virginia.

He said Cohen's decisions thus far had staying power because they treated the legal parents of civil unions — and by extension gay marriages — no differently than parents in heterosexual custody cases.

While the Vermont case appears destined for appeal and the court battle in Virginia continues, Tobias said he didn't think appeals courts in either state would overturn the decision.

"They've already been to that court a couple times now," he said referring to Virginia's court of appeals. "There's a point at which every court gets tired of people litigating when they have no valid case to make."

* * *

Your thoughts?

[Goodwoman614]

Is this the case where the one woman not only left her partner but embraced a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint on homosexuality as well?  If so, hmmmm...wonder how much of that has been passed on to that child...

[resamerie]

It's sketchy on this detail  "We're certainly not happy with the order. I think Lisa is devastated that the court would grant custody to Jenkins — a person who Isabella doesn't know.

Seeing that these are the comments from the mother's lawyer, I'd like to know just how close the child is to her other mother. He makes it sound like she's a stranger, but, what's the truth? I see where the birth mother only brought her for 2 visits in the past 2 years, maybe that's why she may seem a stranger.

 IMHO, I think this is a judge trying to make a name for himself. I've seen/heard of a lot of cases between heterosexual couples that even involve abuse and the court does not change custody. If he is going by the precedence that a gay union is just as legal as a man and a woman, he needs to do what is done in those cases; require court ordered visitation and such. Then, if that is violated, start talking about a change of custody or other penalties. It seems the judge is trying to make it look like he is treating it like any other case but he's not.

[margroc]

I say "bravo" to this judge.  The child will now have access to both parents.  It seems to be a win-win situation to me.

[JoshiRachelsMom]

Quoting Goodwoman614:

Is this the case where the one woman not only left her partner but embraced a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint on homosexuality as well?  If so, hmmmm...wonder how much of that has been passed on to that child...

 

 

I call bullshit on that mother. Bet you she "converted and found God" right before this custody case as a ploy.

[im23vaughn]

I am all for homosexual marriages but I am astounded that they took custody from a biological parent and gave it to a non biological parent. If there was abuse or something I would better understand. But this is like if you dated a man who was not the father and the judge ordered you to give him visitation.

What I am really wondering is why does the other lady have any rights to begin with? I guess the real question is how was the baby conceived? Where is the father?

[JoshiRachelsMom]

Quoting im23vaughn:

I am all for homosexual marriages but I am astounded that they took custody from a biological parent and gave it to a non biological parent. If there was abuse or something I would better understand. But this is like if you dated a man who was not the father and the judge ordered you to give him visitation.

What I am really wondering is why does the other lady have any rights to begin with? I guess the real question is how was the baby conceived? Where is the father?

Maybe because the biological parent just sucks.

Well if you are for homosexual marriages, how can you be against the separation of the children? Bear with me for a moment because we only have the information in the article so I'm going to go out on a hypothetical situation that is probably actual in some gay households:

Let say these two women got married and decided they wanted children. One decides she's going to carry the child to term, they use a sperm bank, man, whatever - but they TOGETHER set out to raise the child as their own. The Non BMOM is involved in every aspect of the child's life ~ let's make her an at home mom ~ BMOM works. Then shit happens down the road as with most relationships and the women are no longer together. Why should the non-biological mother not have to possibility of custody? I mean save genetics she went through the whole process with the other mother.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want them to have marriages then they should all be treated equal in cases of divorce or separation. There should be no difference.

Based on the information in the article. I say the judge made the right call.

[tericared]

I remember when this first started...The bio Mom left the other Mom met a man and then wasn't gay any more became religious and would not let the gay woman see the child......They were both parents to this young girl before the bio Mom left.....I say good for the judge...The bio Mom not only disobeyed the order of the courts but made it nearly impossible for the gay Mom to continue to be in the girls life....The bio Mom was using the girl to hurt the gay mom just like straight couples do......Just because they "were" gay does not mean the laws do not apply to them....... 

[im23vaughn]

 

Quoting JoshiRachelsMom:

 

Well if you are for homosexual marriages, how can you be against the separation of the children? Bear with me for a moment because we only have the information in the article so I'm going to go out on a hypothetical situation that is probably actual in some gay households:

Let say these two women got married and decided they wanted children. One decides she's going to carry the child to term, they use a sperm bank, man, whatever - but they TOGETHER set out to raise the child as their own. The Non BMOM is involved in every aspect of the child's life ~ let's make her an at home mom ~ BMOM works. Then shit happens down the road as with most relationships and the women are no longer together. Why should the non-biological mother not have to possibility of custody? I mean save genetics she went through the whole process with the other mother.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want them to have marriages then they should all be treated equal in cases of divorce or separation. There should be no difference.

Based on the information in the article. I say the judge made the right call.

1st lose the attitude it is not necessary. 2nd did the article mention anything about the mother being unfit? NO IT DIDN"T 3rd didn't I say the real question is how the child was conceived. Geesh you just sound like you are looking for a fight. If you took the time to read my post instead of looking to lash out at someone because your life is crappy then you would see that I raised the question how was the child conceived.

You are going off of hypotheticals. I am going off of what the article ACTUALLY SAYS. the article says that since the mom didn't let the other mom have visitation they took custody of her child. It does not say they were married. It doesn't say if the mom had a child when she met the other mom or what.

When it ever in the best interest of a child to rip them from their biological mother when no abuse has been alleged? Is it in the best interest to rip a child from the only place she has called home, her school, and her life to give a non biological parent custody. Who is looking out for the interest of this child. The judge looked out for the interest of the non custodial mom.

So get off your rampage. The case will be overturned on appeals. Then maybe a visitation schedule can be worked out again.

From what I have read the child is 6 and her moms have been split up for 4 1/2 years. The other mom never tried to adopt her and has barely seen her is almost 5 years. Tearing a child away from the other mother they have known since 17 months is NOT THE ANSWER

[tericared]

 The case is part of a two-year, two-state custody dispute between two women who entered into a legal civil union in Vermont and had a daughter together . It is similar to many cases brought every day involving parents who are seeking to dissolve their legal unions and determine custody of their children.

The couple separated in 2003 and obtained an order regarding their daughter in the process of dissolving their civil union. Lisa Miller-Jenkins, the biological parent, refused to honor the custody order and took the couple’s daughter and fled to Virginia.

http://www.equalityfairfax.org/tag/janet-jenkins/

[tericared]

 I also found this....

�  1.  DOOLEY, J.  Lisa Miller-Jenkins appeals a family court decision
  finding her ex-partner, Janet Miller-Jenkins, to be a parent of their
  three-year-old child conceived via artificial insemination.  On appeal,
  Lisa (FN1) contests three family court decisions.  First, she appeals the
  decision by the Vermont family court that found both her and Janet to be
  legal parents of their child [hereinafter IMJ], and awarded Lisa temporary
  legal and physical rights and responsibilities of the child and Janet
  temporary parent-child contact.  Second, Lisa appeals the family court's
  refusal to give full faith and credit to a Virginia court order, issued
  after the Vermont court's temporary custody and visitation order, that was
  contrary to the Vermont decree and that precluded Janet's visitation
  rights.  Finally, Lisa appeals an order of contempt issued by the family
  court based on her failure to abide by the temporary visitation order.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=vt&vol=/supreme/&invol=2004-443