RutlandHerald.com - We Are Vermont

Judge hands child to Vt. mother



Toolbox

By Brent Curtis Staff Writer - Published: November 21, 2009

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."

brent.curtis@rutlandherald.com








READER COMMENTS


This case reminds me of a case in the 80s called the Baby M case, The reason being is that two women are fighting over one child that they both came together to bring to life on this earth. A surrogate mother agreed to enter into a contract and be paid bear a baby for a couple that were unable to have a natural child.The woman unable to conceive was a doctor and her husband also a upstanding person in New Jersey but he Jewish and they wanted a child to carry on that Jewish blood line.

The surrogate agreed and became pregnant with the husbands sperm and she agreed to allow the couple to raise the baby and she would be like a aunt to the baby.They couple paid all the expenses for the treatments and her medical bills and at the hospital the surrogate changed her mind and said she wanted to raise the baby with her husband and even had the little girl later baptized christian.

The natural mom refused contact with the couple and called the natural father just a (sperm donor) as it was her husband that supported her through the ordeal of having the baby even thou the couple had paid all the bills to conceive the child.

The couple went to court to ask for custody since she was blocking them on grounds that she was the natural mother and the baby should be raised by her not a woman that isn't related to her baby and the natural mom wanted to raise the baby a christian.The court ordered to turn over the baby and for the natural mom to receive visits during the court battle so the natural mom fled with her family and with held the baby for 5 months till they were found and the baby was given over to the couple by the police.

It became a big case of a birth moms baby being stolen by a rich doctor lady who couldn't have her own kid's.The case was settled as a divorce and the father raised the baby and the natural mom received weekends and part summers and holidays.

Baby M is now 23 years old and becoming a pastor. Melissa (baby M) took it on herself to void all her naturals mothers rights when she became 18 years old and wanted the non blood mom to adopt her. Melissa made a statement at 21 that she was happy that the courts took her and gave her to her family referring to the couple as that was their dream of having a child and that want gave her life! "they are my best friends in the world and I love them very much..I'm glad I ended up with them". Melissa has no contact with her natural mother as a adult and refuses to speak of the case....So Isabella is very capable of seeing Janet as a vital role in her coming to be on this earth and loving Janet as a natural mom that is if Lisa will allow Isabella to love and bond with Janet? I don't ever see that happening unless it's forced as in this case.
-- Posted by Mary Stewart on Sat, Nov 28, 2009, 9:01 am EST

report this comment



I hope the biological father gets involved and really fouls this up.
-- Posted by vermonster on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 4:43 pm EST

report this comment



Colleen,

While I am sincerely eager to have a valid discussion on this, I can't help but notice that your posts look like they respond to my posts, but as if you never read them. I specifically wrote that i guessed on 75%...but you knee jerked your critique...

secondly, you cant have written about your perceived shortcommings with a straight face...online classes as opposed to having a unbiologically related absent for 7 year woman be your legal second "mother"

again...you are turning an exception in marriage into something that swallows the rule...
you cant see the difference between choosing to not have children or dealing with a medical problem to have kids and a relationship where there is no way even with our science that both "partners" can be genetically combined into one new person in a historic crossing of two family heritages?

and AGAIN, no one has argued here that gay is wrong or that gay couples shouldnt be just as comitted with a civil union or that CU's should have all the same rights...I have just argued that civil unions and marirages are not the same thing...so they shouldnt have the same name...by way of support I now say...read the article above!
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Fri, Nov 27, 2009, 9:41 am EST

report this comment



Jill, I am sorry you had a bad experience, but am glad for you that you have your children back- Why weren't you represented? There should have been at least legal aid for you-and many MANY legal aid lawyers are outstanding, excellent lawyers.
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 7:42 pm EST

report this comment



**Colleen**
"The only issue in this ruling is the following of custodial requirements of the court. They were not followed, hence the custody is lost. Done." "Follow your custody requrements and you get to keep the child. DON'T follow the custody requirements and give up the child. Its pretty clear cut. Not a lot of gray area here, and again, if this were a traditional couple, and the mother denied visitation despite court order and still accepted child support, and moved out of state, there would be a definite custody battle. And, if the requirements weren't met after a court order, lose the chance of keeping your child."
I must stop you...I followed every rule..when I lived in VT, he rarely saw the kids, he knew..with his ok, that I was moving out of state, I drove them back here everytime they had a visitation...but because he had a big wig lawyer, and I had to go without...I lost. EVEN THOUGH THE KIDS TOLD COHEN OF THE ABUSE HE DID< AND THEY DIDNT WANT TO LIVE WITH HIM. Oh and BTW...he has since remarried..and moved out of VT and left the kids with me...
-- Posted by Jill Wright Jill Wright on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 2:30 pm EST

report this comment



Well, Eric, I don't know where you got your 75% of traditional families existing in America, but seeing statistics that post a 50% divorce rate are common. Maybe my husband and I are a traditional couple, but that certainly doesn't give me the right to say that ours is the best way. We are older to have children- someone who is younger might say at 46 and 60 we are too old for primary school age children. My husband was in the military- maybe thats not a good example for kids. I have a college degree and post online- maybe thats not a good role for women. Its all an interpretation of status.

The only issue in this ruling is the following of custodial requrements of the court. They were not followed, hence the custody is lost. Done.
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 12:53 pm EST

report this comment



here's a major point...

no one is saying love is wrong...no one is trying top prevent anyone from making the best of what life gave them...or to come togther in love...

the point I am making is that the situation Mary describes is clearly a different set up from what is called the traditional family...who will say that sounds the same? Not the exceptions to the "normal" family(adoption, step, in-vitro,)...I mean it is different from the 75% of families in america (no basis for this statistic..its a guess) with a mom and dad. So if there are differences (that Mary is saying she tried to overcome with certain efforts) why would we call them the same name?
Mary's story also casts doubt on the commonly argued fact that CU couples had to work for it so they are more comitted than heteros...
and in all honesty, how can you and your parnter still have a child together, one of you must not be biological, and since you are separated one of you is not physically present...see what makes me worried about this? It is just like the article, a women unbiologically and physically un-connected(lives in another house) is somehow still a legal "parent" from a "marriage"? what????
between the article and mary...there are facts that seem to indicate that lesbian lifestyle may well be "a choice"...and that due to this fact maybe less stable, I wouldnt normally make that kind of statement but mary and this case seem to point this way to me

Truth is, I do not view what Mary described above as optimum...it is less than what is ideal. It is making due with what you have and while it is admirable it was also selfish...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 9:52 am EST

report this comment



Stop bashing Mary Stewart. Whether you "approve" of her life or her beliefs, she is stating everything out of love. Which, if you read about this case, does not have a lot to do with love, more with law, but love is a factor nonetheless...and I am all for love.

Follow your custody requrements and you get to keep the child. DON'T follow the custody requirements and give up the child. Its pretty clear cut. Not a lot of gray area here, and again, if this were a traditional couple, and the mother denied visitation despite court order and still accepted child support, and moved out of state, there would be a definite custody battle. And, if the requirements weren't met after a court order, lose the chance of keeping your child.
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Thu, Nov 26, 2009, 7:04 am EST

report this comment



My intention was to say that in regards to Lisa being the blood mom so she is the real mom and Janet isn't was almost like the story of the Velveteen rabbit and what makes you real? Love is a deep emotion expressed and returned through many different vessels and it's that LOVE that makes you very real! we have hearts big enough to love many different people and many different things in our life!

Isabella shouldn't be made to choose and Janet shouldn't lose her daughter she had a big part in bringing into this world. I have raised 3 sons 28,26 and 23 in my past gay relationship and my oldest is a very talented artist and my second is a police officer and my younger son is in school and has won awards in sports.None ever had any drug or bonding problems and I am a grandma!

They all had the chance to meet their blood donor father and they have all told me how lucky they were and happy that we were their parents and how weird it is that people think its wrong with the way they grew up because it was so much better then any of their peers and that they liked being the men of the house..lol...

They have a parent and child relationship with my former partner and we still have one young child together and none of my sons are gay and we are real like the velveteen rabbit just because we love each other.

Isabella should never be made to limit her love to just her blood family and those accepted by Lisa's church and Isabella is being taught to judge others and think how she was conceived wasn't of God and wrong! Isabella should be where she can be free to love both her parents and others outside the shell Lisa has kept her in.Isabella needs her other mother in her life!!
-- Posted by Mary Stewart on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 11:19 pm EST

report this comment



Mary never brought the state into it, 'Just me'. She simply stated her own thoughts and beliefs in a straighforward, lucid and polite manner. You may want to give it a try some time.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 8:40 pm EST

report this comment



Oh yes, and if you can't make your case without using the Bible, then just give up. Separation of church and state, remember? Funny, it's usually those of us on the side of traditional marriage who are accused of bringing in religion where it doesn't belong....
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 4:43 pm EST

report this comment



Mary,

Maybe you really believe all that, but I don't. Not for one second.

Do you think a father (or mother) can be replaced by a wallet? That the problem with one parent is a matter of income?

If all that matters is the number of parents, and the gender distribution is irrelevant, then wouldn't three parents be even better than two? And four better than three? You get the picture (I hope). You make a GREAT case for polygamy! (If you really believe that.)

A fatherless child will, of course, encounter many wonderful men, but none of them will be the child's father, no matter how great the bond. It will always be something less than ideal.

Did you know that women with poor relationships with their fathers are more likely to have trouble relating to boyfriends and husbands? Not surprising, really. And yes, it's more beneficial to have a good relationship with biological dad than step dad.

The longing of a child for both a mother and father, for gender completeness in parentage, is most certainly not a matter of mere societal conditioning. It's the product of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Children throughout human history had mothers and fathers because that's how children came into being. And it still is, except when people start to play god... which opens up a whole 'nother can of worms.

Mary, if you'd be perfectly happy replacing either of your parents with a dog, then bully for you. But most people would prefer their natural human parents. Most people know in their gut that that's what is right and best, even if some are in denial due to the influence of the current wave of political correctness.
-- Posted by Just Me on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 4:38 pm EST

report this comment



Mary Stewart,

NO!

It is YOU who are trying to "teach" that two women can raise a man...
I was not "taught" a family needs a man and woman...I know that intuitively and by common sense! I also know that what you are trying to "teach" is not true despite your lame attempt to pass off the natural family as something that can be replaced like the love for a puppy...
sure there are great other influences on children...but there is NOTHING like DAD and nothing like seeing your grandfather in your son's eyes!

and I dont know who your god is but he has no place in this discussion with me...its between you and it him or her...leave me out of it...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 3:47 pm EST

report this comment



I think that when people see a single mom raising her child alone we feel that sadness of the fact that there is only ONE parent. A women with one income doing the job of two people.

A male role model comes into mind because we have all been TAUGHT that of course if she gets married and gives her child.. another parent.. then of course it would be a MAN that's the way we have all been taught and raised through time to believe that this is nature RULES.

Male role models and female role models are everywhere around us in our own families and schools,Church's,neighbors,jobs.There is no way children can grow up and not see and know the different between Male and Female.

Love is love and there is no Substitute for love....LOVE it just IS.

We may receive love from different vessels sometimes a woman, a man even a pet! but that feeling of love never changes just because it came from another vessel.
nor is is lessen or lacking due to it NOT being labeled as a social norm!

A child can have a loving bond with a dog but are we to say that a dear stuffed dog taken to bed every night was a mere substitute for a real dog and the stuffed animal could never be loved as the real dog being..the social norm?...of course not!

A single mom lacks a... second parent... her child already has a blood father that bailed out more then likely! why go get another one? lol

If you are looking for the perfect family in the bible as Father,Mother,Baby and are using the bible as your model for this PERFECT,GODLY FAMILY then you will be sadly disappointed but will receive much.. good advise... but if you stop and read the bible you will find as much if not more dysfunction then we have in today's family.

You will see fathers having many wives and even selling and giving their daughters over for rape and many killing their own children in the name of God, holy wars and daughters having babies with their own fathers and their own brothers and godly family members plotting against each other and selling off each other as slaves even killing each other for their wives and money and it gets WORSE!

Jesus preached love and he got killed for it! This fairy tale family that is spoken of by Christians today and how it is expected to work isn't even found in the bible as for the lives of the chosen people spoken of as loved by God in the bible.God loved them regardless of their sins and dysfunction.

God gives you what you need in this life but it's not always in the vessel we wanted it to come in...or may I say how others wanted the vessel it to look!
-- Posted by Mary Stewart on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 3:02 pm EST

report this comment



adoption, stepchildren surrogates are all valid substitutes for the real thing. While they can be great loving situations, something will always be missing...

just me makes a great point that when there is a single mother, everyone agrees that a father's influence would be beneficial, but not when its 2 mothers...just doesnt make any sense.

we all know that children want to know about their NATURAL parents...like who did i get my eyes from, my hair, my tenacity...

again, this is not about condemning civil unions, we are past that...I think there are very few who object to any loving relationship...but this is about calling civil unions the same name as marriage as if they are the same thing...rather than extending all the same rights to civil unions...and again its about using the same name to then argue that they are the same thing...when clearly they are not...

discussions about invitro, adoption, step-parents as related to civil unions is to make the exceptions into the rule...

I must also add that this article flies in the face of every argument that gay couples will be somehow more comitted than heteros...seems to me that besides the possibility of falling out of love with the partner, there is the issue of going straight...which is fine, until children are involved...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 9:17 am EST

report this comment



Thanks Mary Stewart!
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Wed, Nov 25, 2009, 4:35 am EST

report this comment



To all here.. as a christian which is based on the foundation of love. Children don't understand blood or legal rights of parents.Children only understand and react to people they are bonded with and who show them love! Isabella could have had a blood father with a drinking problem or any other SIN going on in his life and no pastor or church would have helped keep Isabella away from her parent.Gay is sometimes made into a huge sin bigger then hate,war and even murder when sin is sin!! and all is under the blood of Christ all the same. Isabella will not be harmed by being showered with love by another mom or grandparents even a new partner of Janet's what will harm her is the fear Lisa has placed in Isabella's heart about Janet and being gay and how we treat gay people.People can't help who they love so should a woman who cheats on her husband and sins be ripped from her child as a disgusting sinner? or a man that steals not allow to speak to his child? What sins do you have that are hidden away that should earn you the punishment of losing your child forever? Janet choices and support caused Isabella to receive her life through donor sperm so Janet has also helped in the making of this little girl and is a mom! Jesus was adopted not the blood child of Mary's husband. Moses also was adopted as God sent him into the rulers home to spare his life. God has placed many of his children in the loving arms of non blood parents and yes,many had sins going on in their life..but don't we all? that's why Jesus came after all.
-- Posted by Mary Stewart on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 11:45 pm EST

report this comment



Hi Eric! I was wondering where you were. :-)

Isn't it a shame that real, natural families have become politically incorrect? It was okay to say that children need fathers when their absence corresponded to single motherhood. But we had better not say that when it's a lesbian couple responsible for fatherlessness!

I just can't wrap my mind around the attitude that natural families are meaningless and fathers (or mothers) are dispensable. This can't possibly be good for society!
-- Posted by Just Me on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 11:05 pm EST

report this comment



"Huh? What? Are you crazy? I know tons of people that have had stepfathers or stepmothers that keep their relations with them. Some may even have 2-3 stepmothers and stepfathers.

Don't talk to me about "NATURAL". Cause I know what you are truly thinking. Hell, I have a greater bond with my Stepfather than I ever will with my deadbeat father."

Oh, okay. Then you'd better stop breathing oxygen and eating food. Those are the designs of nature, you know.

Of course children bond with their step parents. And with aunts, uncles, friends' parents, and so on. That doesn't make them the "real" parents.

I have an absentee father too, and I love numerous other men more than I love him. But you know what? I'd love for a GOOD man to be my biological father, and to be able to have a good relationship with him because the others, as nice as they are, still leave something to be desired. I bet you would too, deep down, where you don't want to admit it.

The first step to healing is admitting your problem.
-- Posted by Just Me on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 10:21 pm EST

report this comment



"Believe it or not. A woman can actually carry a child that is not even hers. Look up (Surrogate). It's true if you haven't been paying much attention. Technically, that would be 2 moms and a dad, right?"

Oh that would be funny if it weren't so sad. You don't seriously believe that, do you? Maybe you should look up surrogate. It means substitute, basically (as in, not the real deal). The genetic material still comes from one man and one woman. Duh.

"Science" (aka playing god) can give us lots of freak things. That doesn't change natural biology.

Or child psychology. Children haven't yet been completely indoctrinated to long for second mothers or second fathers in the way that they long for a first of each.

Oh, and I have a degree in science. Real science. Do you?
-- Posted by Just Me on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 10:17 pm EST

report this comment



Oh,as for the abuse reports made on Janet in regards to making Isabella take a bath nude with her and the other abuse statements made by Lisa. I did find that rather strange that all of a sudden Lisa claims that Janet is a child abuser ? maybe even a child molester and a porn addict as stated on the net by Lisa.I know that Lisa and Janet ran daycare centers together in 2 states were foster parents even trying to adopt a child in the system and then later had Isabella and Lisa was trying to conceive a second baby with Janet before their break up? Why were there no child abuse reports on Janet all those years of dealing with children? and why would Lisa ever try to adopt a foster child and have Isabella in her relationship with Janet if Janet displayed these horrible behaviors with children? why would Lisa ever try for a second baby with Janet? It didn't add up to me that all of a sudden when visits are court ordered Janet became this lesbian monster unsafe around little girls! I would never say those ugly things against my ex partner even thou she is now with another woman and has moved on with her life! being a ex lesbian,I do know that is a very cut your throat.. card.. to pull out just to get many.many straight,christian supporters on your side.I'm sure those remarks greatly affected Janet and she will carry those scars across her heart of that forever.
-- Posted by Mary Stewart on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 5:47 pm EST

report this comment



I am a ex lesbian that has left the life style and am a born again christian.
I am very closely aware of this entire case and the Facebook group supporting Lisa.
I feel badly for Isabella. I do know of Lisa and people that know her and I feel there are some other issues going on other then God telling Lisa no visits toward Janet. I feel like any relationship that breaks up that hurt and anger are moving forces. Janet openly moving another woman into Janet's and Lisa's home in Vermont after Lisa had moved out along with other anger issues from their relationship has caused Lisa not to want to share Isabella with Janet. I feel that morally speaking it has always been very wrong for Lisa to use Isabella to punish Janet being that without Janet well Lisa would never had been able to conceive Isabella as Janet paid for her treatments and even surgeries to bear Isabella as well as picking the donor and to me that was just using Janet and stealing a child Janet also had a part in creating along with Lisa.It is godly wrong to discredit Janet as a parent in Isabella's eyes.My ex partner and I had a child and we are both the parents and share that role even thou our state says I am the only parent.Parenting isn't just a blood action other wise adoption and grandparents and foster parents would be nothing to these kids out there.My partner had a major problem with our child going to Jesus camp for the summer with the other kids from our church feeling it was teaching our child that she was living in a evil way and discrediting her as a parent. I disagreed but respected her feeling and found another program she felt comfortable being apart of. Isabella I'm sure has been made to think of Janet as the devil and now fears her so this is very sad for this poor little girl! Lisa should have accepted the outcome of her past choices are in any divorce and respect Janet's rights for Isabella sake! Knowing the powerful group behind Lisa I don't see any transfer happening in January.
-- Posted by Mary Stewart on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 4:58 pm EST

report this comment



what a mockery of "family" this is...it shouldnt have ebven been in a "family court" but tried right on a revamped jerry springer show...

a court deciding between two "mothers"...
maybe the sperm donor man should come up...he has more to do with the child than the new custodial "mother"...
but nah, we dont need heritage anymore, that old belief...we dont need stability...

reminds me of an old respondse to mother jokes...least I have a mother you have 2 dads and a hole in the wall...to bad it can be true these days...
-- Posted by Eric Stanson on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 4:21 pm EST

report this comment



(((So let me get this right, here. Judge Cohen is removing Isabella from her biological and otherwise fit mother, her friends, her school and the home she knows in Virginia to move her back to Vermont to live with a non-biological mother she does not know because... her mother could only get her up to see this other person once a year? This so-called other parent is tantamount to a step-parent, having ZERO biological/genetic ties to this child.

I think I am going to be sick.))))

You are exactly right Mr. Scott...Judge Cohen loves to destroy families and childrens lives. He did it to mine. My children lived with me ALL of their lives, and when the "father" decided he wanted them...after 13 years...Mr. Cohen, moved them from their home in Texas to Vermont. The children were old enough to express their wants, but Cohen played god, and made them move back to Vermont. I think he gets kick backs for every child he brings back to Vermont.
Lady in Vermont
-- Posted by Jill Wright Jill Wright on Tue, Nov 24, 2009, 8:10 am EST

report this comment



Remember one thing here: There were visitation orders. They were not followed. The woman in Virginia broke the law. To have custody revoked is one of the punishments of not allowing the prescribed visitation to occur. SO, guess what- it happened.

There has been no mention of alleged abuse before, and one should consider the validity of that argument. Also the fact that since its being published in a paper, it is libel and someone could get sued...
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 10:48 pm EST

report this comment



I can't believe the people who say Janet should move to Virginia... they were living here, as a couple, in Vermont. The other woman fled to Virginia. Again, think law here, as someone else already pointed out: X marries Y, Y has a baby, Y then takes off for Virginia, but not without insisting X pay child support. X goes to court to get visitation rights, which the court awards. But, Y will not comply with said court order. Y would be the loser, in any state in the Union.
-- Posted by Doug Aigner on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 10:03 pm EST

report this comment



"As per nature's arrangement, it is impossible for any person to be conceived without exactly one mother and one father. Not two mothers and zero fathers nor any other distribution. That is how we come into this world. That is the way of life.
-- Posted by Just Me on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 11:54 am EST "


Maybe you are a little outdated on Science?

Yes, The sperm came from a man. Or eggs from a woman.

Believe it or not. A woman can actually carry a child that is not even hers. Look up (Surrogate). It's true if you haven't been paying much attention. Technically, that would be 2 moms and a dad, right?


"This natural way is shown in children's curiosity about their origins. They can't miss a second mother they don't know because naturally such things don't exist. They can and do miss a father they never knew, because everyone has a father.
-- Posted by Just Me on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 11:54 am EST "


Huh? What? Are you crazy? I know tons of people that have had stepfathers or stepmothers that keep their relations with them. Some may even have 2-3 stepmothers and stepfathers.

Don't talk to me about "NATURAL". Cause I know what you are truly thinking. Hell, I have a greater bond with my Stepfather than I ever will with my deadbeat father.

I understand why Comfy got short with you. You are very "Tunnel-visioned" in your illusioned, perfect world.


"It's easy to say "so what" about the absence of a father (or mother) when you're hell-bent on declaring gender-irrelevant parenting to be natural. But mother nature will disagree with you every step of the way.
-- Posted by Just Me on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 11:54 am EST "


Clear enough now?

No...

You speak like "Natural" is perfect. It's not. Many people cannot even have children "Naturally". They depend on science to give them their dream.

It's no different than what you "Hate". You are just too full of "Hate" to see the truth.
-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 7:44 pm EST

report this comment



Mark...

Not to be rude. But I agree with Colleen 100%. Maybe you are looking at it all wrong? Or maybe not...

But give this a chance....

This family was created by these two. They are the parents. Doesn't matter who gave birth. They both started the process and finished the process. And even cared for the newborn, together.


What Mark is implying, in my eyes:

If a person is capable of going to court for divorce, getting custody of their child, getting child support, and have been receiving the support for their child.

If they were lucky enough to escape to a state, not allowing the child to see the other parent as long as they could get away with it.

Then they should automatically ALWAYS have the right to keep the child? So.. Whoever is capable of cheating the system the longest, while being with the child, wins? Really, that's the way you feel?

That's disturbing!... Seriously!!

There is no abuse or anything. She just decided "I want this, and you can't have it."

I'm sorry... I have children and I once faced this possibility firsthand. I'm glad VT is snapping the whip and correcting these wrongs. Luckily my wife and I reconciled and I can't imagine that we would have ever made it so hard for either of us to see our children. No matter how upset we were with eachother.

This woman did the most selfish and heartbreaking thing possible to her ole companion. It was mean, terrible, and just downright nasty.

If it was being done for a "rational" reason. I'd understand. But that isn't the case, in this case. She visited family that detested her lifestyle. She decided to stay and change it. Nobody (THERE) ever wanted this child to ever see the TRUTH!... That's what it boils down to. (I've followed this case.)

She's just a selfish $#)$*(% that should not even be a mother in the first place. I'm glad that child will actually learn the meaning of LOVE, FAMILY, and SUPPORT. Not what her other family was trying to give her. LIES, HATE, and ABANDONMENT!
-- Posted by CF Reality on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 7:23 pm EST

report this comment



For the record, I do think that Ms. Miller should have complied with the ordered visitation. I do think it's absurd to have Ms. Jenkins pay child support and then be denied parental rights to go with those parental responsibilities.

But who suffers here? The child. Torn away from the home and mother she knows. That isn't right. This might be different if the "divorce" had occurred recently, and she was a baby still. But at seven years old it will impact her differently. She shouldn't have to suffer so for this. I'm sure the judge could find some other way to bring Ms. Miller around. This solution is nuts.

I also think it's absurd to pretend that two mothers is equivalent to one mother and one father, but that's already done I suppose. This is the sort of ridiculous situation you wind up with when you monkey too much with nature's plan.
-- Posted by Just Me on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 11:59 am EST

report this comment



Ah, Comfy, I see you've run out of logic and had to resort to personal attacks. Is your case really that weak?

Again, you fail to see my point. I will try to lower it even further so it won't go over your head again.

As per nature's arrangement, it is impossible for any person to be conceived without exactly one mother and one father. Not two mothers and zero fathers nor any other distribution. That is how we come into this world. That is the way of life.

This natural way is shown in children's curiosity about their origins. They can't miss a second mother they don't know because naturally such things don't exist. They can and do miss a father they never knew, because everyone has a father.

It's easy to say "so what" about the absence of a father (or mother) when you're hell-bent on declaring gender-irrelevant parenting to be natural. But mother nature will disagree with you every step of the way.

Clear enough now?
-- Posted by Just Me on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 11:54 am EST

report this comment



PC... also if and allegation of abuse was made don't you think that there would have been an investigation. And I am certain that the results of this investigation would influence the Judge's decision. In this circumstance that would make be believe that there wasn't much credibility toward this allegation.
-- Posted by 5letters 6letters on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 9:38 am EST

report this comment



PC.... after knowing Janet for over 5 years, I find this allegation to be a difficult one to believe. Again... this comes from the woman who has disobeyed court orders over and over again.
-- Posted by 5letters 6letters on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 9:33 am EST

report this comment



Well, if it's in newsweek it must be true.

PC, This is a typical lie that one parent will use against another parent during a difficult separation.
-- Posted by ITinVT on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 9:18 am EST

report this comment



There's a slight twist to this story that has not been reported by this paper. Perhaps, it has something to do with Ms. Millers lack of cooperation. An article in Newsweek mentioned that Ms. Miller suspected abuse after visitation with Jenkins. So, perhaps more needs to be reported.
-- Posted by p c on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 8:38 am EST

report this comment



Forget they are Gay.

Forget they are both female.

Now think, the X and Y are married, X and Y decide to end their marriage and X takes off with the child to another state. X denies visitation rights to Y and feels they should have sole custody.

Now looking at it in a X and Y point of view, what is your opinion now?
-- Posted by Name Change on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 6:41 am EST

report this comment



I ask another question.... In a "typical" child custody case, do you think that each side has an opportunity to present their case and then the judge makes a ruling that is in the best interest of the child.

I know Ms. Miller Jenkins personally, (and for those of you who portray her in a negative light) and she is a wonderful person. Her daycare (which my children do not attend) is a warm and loving place. When she meets the kids afterschool everyday, to see the big smiles on their faces tells me quite a bit. These kids range in ages from Kindergarten to 4th grade, and if you see the kids interact with one another you can tell that she has built a positive atmosphere in her daycare.

I would not think twice about sending my kids to her in any situation because I have looked past the reason that cause some of you to deem her to be an "immoral" person. It is more than apparent that you are only feeding of your bigotry and reading what you want to read from what has been published about this case.

And for those of you who have also called her selfish... She never asked for full custody in the beginning she only asked for visitation in which an agreement was made. The birth mother, who for her own personal choice chose to move to Vermont specifically to enter into a civil union, enter into that legal union, have a child with with her partner, and become a family. During a breakup, she has decided to renounce her temporary sexual preference and immediately move back to Virginia. Does this sound like a person who makes the most sensible decisions?

I can assure you all of the details of her other actions haven't made the papers, and don't you believe for a minute that Ms. Miller isn't being represented by another special interest legal group. The statements about Ms. Miller Jenkins being represented by GLAD isn't relevant as south of the Mason-Dixon line there are certainly some very powerful legal groups that tend to support some very conservative views, especially with such national coverage and implications.

I challenge you to for an instance, look past your shallow mindedness ask yourself.... is there a chance that the judge made the correct ruling? I am not positive, but I will tell you that because I know her, I am wiling to believe that Janet is a good parent, and because of the laws that YOUR lawmakers have passed that this ruling is fair and just. For those of you who disagree I challenge you to stop posting to this discussion and speak to a state representative or state senator to have these laws changed.
-- Posted by 5letters 6letters on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 6:39 am EST

report this comment



I think a lot of people are missing the point that this parent took her child out of the only home that she ever knew and away from the only co-parent that this child ever knew. This is where the lack of regard began, but not where it ended. If said parent had not denied all visitation in spite of the courts decision; had shesimply cooperated with the visitation order so that her own child could maintain contact with both of her parents, then she would not have lost custody.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 1:05 am EST

report this comment



Stop being an idiot, 'just me', you know perfectly well that "so what if the child wants to know who her biological father is" means that it is not relevent to the decision that the court has made. Are you really so obtuse that every single statement must be explained to you; every word defined?
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Mon, Nov 23, 2009, 1:00 am EST

report this comment



I'm stunned by the garbled arguments of those defending this bizarre ruling, and the destructive intent of the child's non-mother. There comes a point when there's just little point in keeping a discussion going.

If the welfare of a family boils down to nothing more than legalities based on a political agenda, then I guess you folks have your minds cast in stone, and no length of exhortation will move you.

I'm so sorry for you all, that a child's well-being mean this little to you.

Good night. And good luck; it's a hard-hearted corner you've painted yourselves into.
.
-- Posted by mark on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 10:06 pm EST

report this comment



"So what if she wants to know who her genetic father is?; he is not the one that the child is bonded to as a parent, Ms. Miller is."

So what? How callous. I happen to think that children deserve mothers and fathers, and I'm not the only one. I would never say "so what" to a child who wants to know her roots.

You're right though that Ms. Miller is the parent the child is bonded to. How sad that the judge thinks that's worthless.
-- Posted by Just Me on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 9:53 pm EST

report this comment



No, Comfy, according to my logic a mother is not a father. That's the point I was making. I'm sorry it went over your head.
-- Posted by Just Me on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 9:50 pm EST

report this comment



Just me, according to your logic, an adoptive father who is married to the birth mother when the child is born has no parental rights. That is just plain silly. Everyone knows that these two women were this childs primary care-givers and co-parents from the time of her birth. So what if she wants to know who her genetic father is?; he is not the one that the child is bonded to as a parent, Ms. Miller is.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 9:27 pm EST

report this comment



Support for this decision seems to hinge on analogizing Ms. Jenkins to the child's father. For example:

"Let me ask a question... If this were a heterosexual couple, with the male being unable to father a child, and a sperm donor was used, what would be everyone's opinion on the father being awarded custody considering he had no biological ties to the child? What would his rights be?"

"But Mark, a father wouldn't experience the birth requirements either if you based the argument on natal ownership."

So. Is Ms. Jenkins claiming to be the child's FATHER?

I daresay it's worth mentioning that children of single mothers sooner or later inquire about their fathers. Do I have a father? Who is my father? What happened to him?

They NEVER ask if they have other mothers.

Let's face it, folks. A second mother (as if there could be such a thing) is not a father.
-- Posted by Just Me on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 9:08 pm EST

report this comment



Coleen is absolutely right. In addition, the biological has demonstrated repeatedly that she has no regard for the law when it doesn't suit her purpose. She made a conscious choice when she decided to play this game by taking the child and moving to a state that she thought would give her an advantage when she decided that she felt like rescinding her partner's parental rights. She doesn't seem to have questioned the other parent's responsibility to pay for the upbringing of the child.
It is an obvious attempt on the part of the biological mother to use the discriminatory laws in one state to undo the legal contract that she voluntarily engaged in, in another state. It's a legal game that the biological mom has chosen to play. She knew at the outset that the stakes were her child. She ripped the child out of her home and deprived her of her other parent with no regard for the effect that this would have on the child. Then she deprived her own child of contact with her other parent, traumatizing her further and followed this up by ignoring the courts visitation orders.
The reason GLAD is involved is that the bio-mom is deliberately using the adoptive mom's sexual orientation as a tool to try to deprive her of parental rights. She is using the very discrimination that she struggled against in the past, to suit her personal ends now. This is a disgusting attempt by the worst kind of hypocrite and an absolutely appropriate case for GLAD to be interested in. I for one am 'glad' that there is someone there to help protect the rights of this mother and daughter who have been involuntarily deprived of this primary lifetime relationship with one another by the poor judgement and misguided decisions of Ms. Miller.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 8:33 pm EST

report this comment



But Mark, a father wouldn't experience the birth requirements either if you based the argument on natal ownership. (Honestly, however, as a mother of 2, its not nearly as bad as you are making it out to be. Being pregnant is so much fun, and so exciting and such a joy-as is motherhood, there is not one bad thing about it!)
So, if you have a father who wanted custody, in a situation such as this, there would be no point of him even trying to become the primary guardian of the child.
The one and only point of this entire argument is that the former guardian of the child refused the other parent visitation. Apparently, there was child support paid, and when court orders are not followed, agreements are pulled.

Black and white on paper. The mother in Virginia did it to herself by not following the rules. End of story.
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 7:57 pm EST

report this comment



re: "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."

"NORM?" This poor child doesn't have a chance. God help her.
-- Posted by Major Taxpayer on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 7:22 pm EST

report this comment



If this was just about parental rights and not about being a trophy for the gay rights movement, then why is Jenkins being represented by G.L.A.D. (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders). According to their website is: New England's leading legal rights organization dedicated to ending discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is all about an agenda. These Judges are a disgrace with their repugnant actions. People are not racist or homophobes if they disagree with this ruling.
-- Posted by p c on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 6:31 pm EST

report this comment



In liberal, left-wing VT, children are but pawns to selfish adults. If liberals cared about children they would do all they could to uphold families, not tear them apart.

The non-mother has no biological connection to the child; she has apparently had little to do with the child's upbringing; she did not bear the child for 9 months, dutifully enduring the radical changes nature placed upon her body, painstakingly monitoring her nutrition and overall health; she did not give birth to this child, in agony and triumph; if the baby was breast-fed, it certainly wasn't at the breast of the non-mother.

But the State says she belongs to a stranger.

These people should be ashamed of themselves.
...
-- Posted by mark on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 3:05 pm EST

report this comment



I agree that if I were in the situation, I would have moved to Virginia to be closer to my child. However, with the visitation situation as it is, or was, it doesn't look like there would have been visitation allowed if the non-custodial parent lived in the same town. The custodial parent refused to allow any visits at all.

Let this be a lesson to all parents who are unable to put their personal feelings aside while providing a child a home. The law is the law, and had the custodial parent followed that law, there would have been no reason to revoke custody.

And thanks. This is not about me, certainly. Just wanted to offset the grammar police before they attacked me on Monday morning.
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 2:24 pm EST

report this comment



What would King Solomon do?

He would elect to rip the child away from the mother and life she knows in Virginia, at seven years old, to hand her over to a woman she doesn't know well and a home she doesn't know well.

And then when Ms. Jenkins cheers "oh I can't WAIT to get that kid!" he would realize she's not the true mother. If she were, she'd want the kid to have stability and familiarity and comfort, and not to be uprooted and moved almost 1000 miles away from the mother and home that she knows.

Judge Cohen got the first part right, but maybe he forget how King Solomon followed up.
-- Posted by Just Me on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 2:18 pm EST

report this comment



I don't care who gets the kid...............
-- Posted by None None on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 11:20 am EST

report this comment



Ms. Wright,

Your comment that, "because wherever your child is, that is home." is correct, that's why the child should stay with her biological mother! Why doesn't Jenkins move to Virginia if she was so concerned? The way the courts seem to lean in Vt. I don't blame the "real" mother for being apprehensive about visitation. This woman also denounced homosexuality, does this have anything to do with the judges decision? These judges want the spotlight for making these landmark decisions and not about what's right and wrong. Ms. Jenkins should be ashamed for allowing this to continue. If she really cared for this child and not so much about her ego, then this could have a more positive outcome for the daughter. And that's what were talking about, right? Most probably don't know what goes on regarding this story other than what they read in this obviously, biased newspaper. Custodial rights usually go to the parent who has shown a stable, caring, environment.
So, don't be concerned about your grammar, this is not about you.
-- Posted by p c on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 10:26 am EST

report this comment



I apologize for the poor grammar in my previous post- while I believe the arguments I presented are fair and accurate, my grammar was terrible! Yikes! So sorry for those of you who had to dredge through it! What was I typing!!!
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 9:06 am EST

report this comment



At least in a Heterosexual Marriage, BOTH parents are usually the biological parents, it is IMPOSSIBLE for BOTH parents to be Biological in a Gay Marriage, so does that mean the bio parent wins every time? Why have a court if that would be the case?
-- Posted by Name Change on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 6:13 am EST

report this comment



ROFLMAO

How many hetro separations seemed UNFAIR? Get use to it,. Maybe the judge felt that if the biological mother was going to bring a child into a Lesbian relationship, that the bio mother was UNFIT. I agree. There is more tot he story than what is being read and I for one, do not believe in Gay Marriage and it is no place for a child. A child needs a balanced upbringing by normal parents and not by a couple who live perverted and immoral life styles.

With Gay Marriage expect more of this. Remember when they were demanding the right to marry how they would bring up broken homes of hetros? Well which is worst?
-- Posted by Name Change on Sun, Nov 22, 2009, 6:11 am EST

report this comment



This ruling absolutely sickens me. How could Judge Cohen possibly say this isn't punishment to the biological mother. Who is he kidding? I think she tried to defy the court's ruling by trying to break ties with her former partner by not complying with the court's demands and, in return, the judge used his (or I should say) abused his authority by imposing this unthinkably cruel act upon this child and the mother. He said he is not doing this as a punishment to her. What else could it possibly be? It makes absolutley no sense that this could be in the best interest of the child who has only known (for the most part) her biological mother and her life in Virginia. What a painful reminder of how victimized we can be by our "justice" system.
-- Posted by Elizabeth Dulli on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 9:34 pm EST

report this comment



Wow. What an obscenity this court ruling is. And can you imagine what kind of person would have the gall to say they loved a child even as they used the force of law to pry that child from her very own mother?

It's shocking. But in VT-- where the only "true" parent is the State-- it is hardly surprising.
..
-- Posted by mark on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 9:23 pm EST

report this comment



Let me ask a question... If this were a heterosexual couple, with the male being unable to father a child, and a sperm donor was used, what would be everyone's opinion on the father being awarded custody considering he had no biological ties to the child? What would his rights be?

I see this as not being any different.
-- Posted by 5letters 6letters on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 8:45 pm EST

report this comment



This decision is immoral, impractical and counterintuitive. If I was a stepfather and adopted my wife's child, and at some point when the child was still an infant we divorced, there is no way in hell i would get custody in any form unless the mother was totally unfit. This decision, and this entire case, is the worst form of political correctness run amuck. It has nothing to do with gay rights- no straight non-biological parent would ever receive the consideration the courts have given Jenkins. This is a judge with an agenda. Poor kid stuck in the middle.
-- Posted by bill johnson on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 7:02 pm EST

report this comment



i am kind of going through this same sitution, i have this baby who is now 22 months old but i have had him since he was 6 months old due to his mother giving him to me (gaurdianship through the courts) and now she is wanting this child back and as far as visits go she has took off for months on end and keeps coming and going in and out of his life, i just hired a lawyer myself and am fighting in court to keep this child with me for she still has no stable place to live and he(the baby) has no idea who she is or anyone in her family, so my point is that i feel like some also do that why take a child from a home that they are comfortable with and have known to be the only home they have but at the sametime not stop the other parent from having visits but if the other parent refuses to see the child themselves then that would be on them as it is in my situation but i can feel for the bio mom who is hurting as i will if this baby is taken from me, espicially when the child has been stable for the one time in his life as this baby i have has, i do not agree that taking this child from the bio mom would be in the best interest of the child but at the sametime i do not feel that the other parent should be refused time with the child either.i see both sides in some ways but i think it is going to be hard on the child not knowing this person she is going to live with, i also feel that using a child against each other is not fair and is totally wrong on both parents. i hope this does not happen to me for it will be hertbreaking for me and espicially the child who has no idea who his bio- mom is, this is truely heart breaking story and breaks my heart to her that this child has to be put through all of this,my situation the bio-mom has not bothered to have contact with the child.
-- Posted by dum 2 dum dum dum .... on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 6:21 pm EST

report this comment



This is not fair to the child. I guess the biological mom thought this wouldn't happen because she's the biological parent. In my opinion, the child should stay with the biological parent.
-- Posted by Tammy Lawrence on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 6:11 pm EST

report this comment



It is already far too late for the child to come out a winner in this. Her biological mother had a baby with her legal partner whom she declared to be the co-parent. Then the birth mother decided she wasn't happy with the relationship and ripped the child from the only other parent she has ever known and then denied them visitation with one another against the direct order of the court. She has been trying to play both sides of the fence, apparently under the impression that she can rescind parental rights at her whim by switching to a state that does not recognize the legal contract that she used to bestow said rights in the first place. I feel really sorry for the little girl caught in the middle of this.
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 5:57 pm EST

report this comment



To rip a child away from the only life this child has known is wrong. I don't agree that visitation should have been withheld, however, when dealing with 2 states there are many problems. Having been through this sort of situation as a child (2 states but divorced parents) I know that this little girl is not going to have it easy.
Just because 2 people cohabitate does not legally imply parenthood. To grant sole legal custody to an "unknown" is so very wrong. Adverse affects are just waiting to pounce on this little child caught in the middle.
-- Posted by m mattell on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 1:57 pm EST

report this comment



So let me get this right, here. Judge Cohen is removing Isabella from her biological and otherwise fit mother, her friends, her school and the home she knows in Virginia to move her back to Vermont to live with a non-biological mother she does not know because... her mother could only get her up to see this other person once a year? This so-called other parent is tantamount to a step-parent, having ZERO biological/genetic ties to this child.

I think I am going to be sick.



I certainly hope that the Commonwealth of Virginia steps in and blocks this.
-- Posted by Scott Frank on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 1:21 pm EST

report this comment



Comfy has it right. There are many situations in which a married couple has a child and it's not biologically of one partner. To throw out a few: an affair, in-vitro, donor, a couple that gets together when a previous marriage has broken up but before the child is born (or even after a child is born). Many times (admittedly not always), both are considered parents.
-- Posted by Math Curmudgeon on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 10:14 am EST

report this comment



It was always my understanding that if a couple is married when the child is born, the person that the mother is married to is considered a legal parent regardless of biologic paternity. So who birthed the baby isn't really the issue. They are both parents to this child and one has no right to deny the other court ordered visitation. I don't know how a loving parent could be so cruel as to deprive their own child of access to the other parent who was there as a primary caregiver from the beginning. That child is just as bonded to her non-biological parent as she is to her birth mother or would have been to a biological father, had he been the partner in parenting.
Colleen, spot on as usual!
-- Posted by Comfy Anon on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 9:44 am EST

report this comment



Unbelievable that someone can have their own biological child taken from them and given to a person that has no biological ties whatsoever. How many cases do you hear of where a biological parent loses custody to a step father or step mother? I don't know of any. This will be a long and drawn out appeal. I think this Judge's decision will be overturned. Too bad the child will most likely be an adult before this is all said and done. These women want to take their hatred out on one another by using the child and the judicial system.
-- Posted by Ann Marie None on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 8:18 am EST

report this comment



Not that anyone needs to prove a bond, but there are recent photos of Isabella happy in the presence of her Vermont mom. Miller could have stopped this war any time by allowing access. The fact that she blocked parent and child from each other, thereby preventing even more bonding between them, certainly isn't a reason for the courts to prevent it further.

It only takes one parent to use a child as a pawn and block a relationship between the child and the other parent. How easy for strangers to say, "Well, there's no real bond there. Give her to the parent who's spent the most time with her."

This is no different from other parents who break up. As Colleen Wright said, if it were a heterosexual couple and otherwise ALL the same circumstances (including one non-biological parents), this wouldn't even have made the paper. The bio mother who made choices when she brought a child into her relationship. The fact that she's now playing the religious belief card and whatever else she can use to prevent access between the child and other parent doesn't make her case any more compelling.
-- Posted by None None on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 8:16 am EST

report this comment



Transition isn't out of the norm for a 7 year old. That is the world- people move, custody is changed. If this were a traditional couple, it wouldn't even make the papers. Now is the time when we see what the biological mother is made of; if she moves back to the area so that she can see her child. If this were my kid, and the courts decided to change custody, I would move to wherever my child was in a heartbeat. Because wherever your child is, that is home.

It will be difficult for the child in that there has been sever limits on visitations BECAUSE of the biological mother. Its her fault. Now she has to live with it. Had she followed the court ordered vistation policy, this probably never would have gone this far. Accept it, and feel it everyday.
-- Posted by Colleen Wright on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 7:32 am EST

report this comment



The is political correctness that seems, from the story as presented, blind to the needs of a 7-year-old child. Many divorced parents get a poor grade in the 'sharing custody' department. "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." What a sad story.
-- Posted by Michel Guite on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 7:27 am EST

report this comment



I'm wondering since the child was only 1 when the women split has the judge even talked tothe child or has a guardian ad-litem given their opinion after speaking with the child. The non-biological "mother" really has no ties to the child other than the 2 living together as a couple. The child was only a baby an doesn't seem to have had time to even bond with the other woman. This move could have an adverse affect by taking her away from the only mother she has ever known.
-- Posted by vermont transplant None on Sat, Nov 21, 2009, 6:26 am EST

report this comment


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Register | Log In

Logout