Posted on 01/01/2010 3:59:14 PM PST by Steelfish
Woman Defies Order To Give Child To Ex-Partner Parental abduction charges possible after she and daughter vanish
Lisa Miller [Pic in URL] and her 7-year-old daughter are missing after failing to show up at the home of Miller's ex-partner as part of a court-ordered custody agreement. A woman at the center of a complex dispute with her former lesbian partner defied a court order to give up custody of her 7-year-old daughter Friday, and police said she could face parental abduction charges.
A Vermont judge had ordered Lisa Miller to turn over daughter Isabella to Janet Jenkins at 1 p.m. Friday at the Falls Church, Va., home of Jenkins' parents. Miller did not show up with the girl, according to Fairfax County, Va., police and Jenkins' Vermont-based attorney.
"She's very disappointed, obviously," said Sarah Star, Jenkins' lawyer. "She's very concerned about Isabella and asks that if anybody sees Isabella, that they please contact the authorities."
The Jenkins family called police after Miller failed to show, and a detective from the department's child exploitation unit is investigating, said Officer Tawny Wright, a Fairfax County police spokeswoman.
If police believe a crime has been committed, they will obtain a criminal warrant charging Miller with parental abduction, and at that point officers would begin searching aggressively for the child, Wright said. For the time being, she said, the case remains a civil matter.
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.
When Vermont Family Court Judge William Cohen dissolved the couple's civil union, he awarded custody to Miller but granted liberal visitation rights to Jenkins.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I don’t normally support lawbreakers, but....good for her.
In a way, this should serve as a lesson to all those Gay marriage supporters. Be careful what you wish for.
Yeh, don’t worry...If I see her...I’ll report her....I mean, really I will...really....
I too DON’T recommend civil disobedience. But if I did, I would be willing to shelter this woman and child in the underground railroad. God’s law trumps Caesar’s.
Go Lisa! Go!
“Yeh, don’t worry...If I see her...I’ll report her....I mean, really I will...really....”
Me too! May even slip the mom a couple of bucks to help with gas. :)
I would recommend dragging that child molester judge off the bench and out into the street to be hanged... but, I'm on the other side of the continent...
The lawmakers who make bad laws are just as stupid!
Where do we find such lunatics?
Democrats......oh.
Me either; but in this case; don’t give that little girl back. We all know the judge is nuts and this wrong.
I don’t think they’ll see the point until a biological father demands the child be taken away from a lesbian or biological mother taking a child from the gay father.
Where could they go to be safe?
And does she have a legal defense fund?
How many women?
Good — resistance to ytrants is obedience to God. As a responsible mother, she has acted to protect her child. The judge — and the state — are WRONG, and should be disobeyed.
We always scream about legislating from the bench, yet this judge was just interpreting law that was enacted by the people of the state for which he serves. The people at fault here are the two ladies and the idiots that enacted this law. I too would support this lady in civil disobedience, but you can't blame the judge. He's bound by the legislature's actions as long as they don't run contrary to the state's constitution.
THis simply confirms that homosexuals to not reproduce, they recruit.
The mother has a biological attachment to this child, the lesbian lover of the mother has exactly zilch. The judge who ordered such visitation is simply an idiot.
Would you drop off your minor child at the home of anyone with whom you were engaged in custody dispute? Not on your life. If the former lover wants visitation let then come to some supervised location and time. Period. Becuase the likelihood of the Jenkins woman grabbing the kid and running back to Vermont is very high.
If this is true, PRAISE GOD. Foolish laws should be ignored, circumvented or disobeyed. The organization is to be congratulated and supported. Oh, but they can expect to catch h#|| from Liberofascists at every level of government.
I would also agree with you in a sane world, but now the laws are administered with the vale off of justice and we are now using feelings verse laws and those feelings change with the wind, so it is now time for civil dis-obedience. This would be a great case for a community to stand against tyranny.
I’m sure she’ll get lots of support here, but Miller is a fool. She will be caught, she’ll be thrown in prison, and not only will her former partner get the child, but Miller will never spend another moment alone with her. Best case scenario for Miller will be supervised visitation.
A man this wek finally got his child back from Brazil.
His wife kidnapped the child and went to Brazil and he had to fight the family of his exwife’s husband to get the child back. Now they say they will try to get the child back from the natural father.
At the same time a Dyke with no natural ability to father a child is given custody of a child from the natiral mother.
I do not have any use for a natural mother who is queer and had her child by turkey baster, but she is the natural mother and should have custody, before this other fruit.
Now I know some will not agree with that, but it’s my story and I am sticking to it.
If she allowed some visitation in the first place this nightmare would not have occurred.
She entered into the relationship. A child was born into the relationship.
She changed her mind and now has decided to deny the other ‘mother’ any visitation.
Unless the rumors in Post #11 are true...in which case I applaud the mother. Regardless of past mistakes (which are now forgiven) her first priority is to protect her child.
That is my understanding as well.
>> A child was born into the relationship <<
Excuse me? What does the “relationship” have to do with a mother’s bond to her natural child? The Vermont woman had nothing to do with the birth. Just because she was in a lesbian relationship with the mother, or even if she “manned” the turkey baster, I fail to see why she should have any rights vis-à-vis another woman’s child.
And shame on any Virginia judge who would enforce the crazy Vermont judge’s order. Virginia doesn’t recognize “civil unions” and should be under no obligation to give full faith and credit to Vermont’s recognition of such.
>> Miller is a fool. She will be caught, she’ll be thrown in prison <<
Don’t forget that Virginia will inaugurate a pro-life governor in a few days. He can and should pardon her. Moreover the Virginia legislature can and should nullify the irresponsible rulings handed down in this case by the Virginia courts.
“The judge who ordered such visitation is simply an idiot.”
The Judge awarded CUSTODY, not visitation. This was to be a permanent transfer.
As for allowing visitation, the child reported earlier that she was molested on an earlier visitation to Vermont, and that the woman ‘took baths with her’.
That’s when Lisa Miller cut off all visitation. This case should have been open and shut. The problem is that the gay rights activists are trying to establish two things here.
1. There are no ‘ex-gays’, and anyone who claims to be ‘ex-gay’ is an unfit parent.
2. The civil union even after divorce entitles one to visitation, etc. Nevermind the fact that no ADOPTION papers were ever filed, etc.
“The judge who ordered such visitation is simply an idiot.”
The Judge awarded CUSTODY, not visitation. This was to be a permanent transfer.
As for allowing visitation, the child reported earlier that she was molested on an earlier visitation to Vermont, and that the woman ‘took baths with her’.
That’s when Lisa Miller cut off all visitation. This case should have been open and shut. The problem is that the gay rights activists are trying to establish two things here.
1. There are no ‘ex-gays’, and anyone who claims to be ‘ex-gay’ is an unfit parent.
2. The civil union even after divorce entitles one to visitation, etc. Nevermind the fact that no ADOPTION papers were ever filed, etc.
“Yeh, don’t worry...If I see her...I’ll report her....I mean, really I will...really....”
Me also... really.... ;-)
“The judge who ordered such visitation is simply an idiot.”
The Judge awarded CUSTODY, not visitation. This was to be a permanent transfer.”
It appears that there are no lawyers/attorneys left in our culture who have ...OK.....a pair...a set...something in their pants....
Is This new world culture filled with John Kerrys’ and that idiot Berny/Barny Frank....
Sorry it’s late... and I am a lady who is a little angry ...
The judge was "interpreting law" by completely disregarding the interests of the child and giving full legal custody to a dike ex-partner who the child didn't even know? It was a completely subjective, illogical and arbitrary decision that had nothing to do with any strict interpretation of law.
I’m outraged!!!!!!!! the judge needs to be hung from the court house steps!
Legally, she was the adoptive mother of the baby, through the civil union laws of Vermont.
But the divorce decree had granted custody to the natural mother, with visitation rights only to the other mother.
The natural mother violated the court decree for visitation rights. She was fined repeatedly, but still did not maintain the legal visitation she had agreed to in the divorce, nor go through the proper legal channels to change the visitation order.
So the judge finally had to award custody to the other woman, who promised to maintain the visitation rights of the natural mother.
This was a legal battle, with the hope that Virginia law would be interpreted as invalidating civil court rulings of other states. But the Virginia judges, through the Supreme Court, rejected that argument.
Virginia courts are not liberal. The lack of respect for basic law from some conservatives is a bit appalling.
On the legal matter, the Vermont Civil Union law provides adoptive rights to the non-biological partner — no direct adoption is needed.
On the “molestation” charges, first, I’ve yet to find a competent news source that states that the child reported molestation. I’ve seen claims by the mother. Second, Virginia child protective services investigated the claims, and found no basis to them. If you know much about CPS, you know they rarely err on the side of missing real molestation.
The judge awarded custody because previous rulings to enforce visitation rights were unsuccessful. Miller has refused to obey any judge’s order for visitation, despite fines. Custody was the only tool left short of putting the woman in prison (which is coming), and the ruling was not expected to substantially change the amount of time either woman spent with the child.
Common sense would say that the girl belongs with her natural mother, not some stranger who is not a blood relative. It's like giving your child to some stranger on the street. Where is the father in all of this?
Does the 7 year old child know that she has a father, not two mommys? She belongs with her natural mother, and hopefully, a husband.
They wanted homosexual marriage. They GOT it! And this is exactly the kind of thing we can look forward to in the future. Lots of messy break ups.
This is going to be status quo for a lot of homosexual marriages, despite the media trumpeting the few homosexual “relationships” that last.
What a tragedy. I’m glad she now sees the light, but under the law, she has to let a homosexual access to her child. Period. That is the law.
No. We can't have it both ways and shouldn't. The people of Vermont enacted a law and the judge is bound by that law. He/she only gets to judge in the interest of the child when it's not contrary to the law. Law: it's just that. They enact a LAW and nothing but the state's constitution can run contrary to it in his/her ruling. That's why we are such a stable nation; we are a nation of law and order. That's why Roe vs. Wade was so bad; the court decided in favor of what they perceived as moral against what the law was - thus legislating from the bench. Besides, this judge didn't give full legal custody to the dyke; he merely gave visitation rights in accordance with their LAW. With that said, I am in favor of their civil disobedience to that law and would aid the lady if I knew her. But, the judge is not at fault here; the legislature and both of these ladies are.
Legal custody was being taken from Miller because she refused to follow court orders for visitation when she had sole custody of the child. The other woman promised to maintain visitation for Miller.
The child did know the other woman — they lived together for the 1st years of her life, and after their divorce visitation was maintained until the girl was 6.
The judge was ruling in the interest of the child, as it is unfortunately interepreted in modern culture. No judge is going to be able to legally rule that a homosexual parent is unfit simply because they are homosexual — no matter how much we wish that were the case.
There is way too much misinformation to have a rational conversation about this.
You are dead wrong. This is not a child molester judge. The judges hands are completely tied by the law.
The minute 2 dikes decided they wanted to have a kid, they BOTH became the child’s legal parents. That is the law. And when one divorced the other, the law recognizes the right of BOTH parents to raise their child. Period.
As far as I am concerned, I think homosexual adoption and child rearing should be illegal. A child needs a mommy and daddy, not two of one sex. But as long as states pass laws allowing for dykes to marry and allow them to have children by artificial inseminiation or adoption, then the laws must be followed. And tragically, the law is that both the current and former dyke are the child’s legal parents. I don’t like that, but that is the law. So long as that is the law, the former dyke has no right to deprive the current dyke parent of that person’s legal child.
I completely disagree that she should run off with the child. She made her bed and she has to lie in it. No different than a man getting a woman pregnant and then not wanting to support the child. She had a child with another person and she has no right to deprive the other person of access to their child.
She blew it. She should have done what is right, shared custody, and made it clear to the child that homosexuality is wrong. Now she is going to lose her child to the current dyke permanently.
Tragic.
Exactly. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and this woman and her child are victim’s of a bad law, people here want the judge to create laws from thin air from the bench. I don’t want judicial activism from our side or from theirs. Judges uphold the law, period. Blame the legislators for allowing homosexual marriage, not the judge for simply following the law.
Many here are letting their emotions fry their brain cells. Or I suppose we can just go with complete lawlessness and I will cut up my vehicle license since that is a bad law as well. I will quit paying half my taxes, since half of it goes to unconstitutional purposes.
I would represent her pro se if I could get a pro hac vice status in that state. They need to drag that judge into the streets and buggy whip him. He is a POS.
Who is to say what laws are foolish? You? The laws are what they are whether or not you like them. We can elect legislators who pass righteous laws or not. When fools vote to elect foolish politicians, we get foolish laws. The only backstop we have on the law is the Constitution. Beyond that, you don’t get to decide which laws you want to follow and which you don’t. That is the hardship of living in a democracy. The idiotic majority often enslave or burden a wiser minority who is now bound by their idiocy.
I hate it myself. Everything Obama is doing is foolish. The only power we have is to unelect these idiots and elect righteous men. We don’t get to cherry pic, which laws we want to follow.
There are many places on earth where it would be impossible to extradite Lisa Miller from.
An unjust law is no law at all.
The law of nature dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this....
So molestation plays no factor in custody? The judge should never have even heard the appeal.
Who said it:
"I write specially to state that the homosexual conduct of a parent ... creates a strong presumption of unfitness that alone is sufficient justification for denying that parent custody of his or her own children or prohibiting the adoption of the children of others."
"Homosexual conduct is, and has been, considered abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God upon which this Nation and our laws are predicated. Such conduct violates both the criminal and civil laws of this State and is destructive to a basic building block of society—the family. The law of Alabama is not only clear in its condemning such conduct, but the courts of this State have consistently held that exposing a child to such behavior has a destructive and seriously detrimental effect on the children. It is an inherent evil against which children must be protected."
Wrong. Civil Disobedience is sometimes a DUTY. Whether you like it or not, or whether you personally choose to engage in it or not, Civil Disobedience of human laws which violate the law of God is an outright Command.
We ought to obey God rather than men.
I guess if Tomorrow a legislature passes a law that requires you to turn in all of your firearms, you are going to do so? Right? Or will you rethink your stance on Civil Disobedience?
Who is to say what laws are foolish? You? The laws are what they are whether or not you like them.... We don’t get to cherry pic, which laws we want to follow.
________
Okay, YOU obey laws that are contrary to Scripture. It is my conviction that if a law is unjust, it is morally permissible to disobey that law. It may not be imperative, but it is permissible. And yes, there are consequences — the law may then punish someone for their disobedience. That goes with the territory.
Examples? Peter and John did this very thing in Acts. And MANY Christian Missionaries do it every day by preaching the Gospel in foreign lands that are “closed” to religious freedoms and liberties. And if you want some history, how about the “underground railroad” that helped fugitive slaves escape from their captivity? Slavery was the “law of the land,” and even free states were enjoined to respect that law — but many didn’t. Was that wrong? Or how about the many Germans (like Schindler and Corrie Ten Boom) who harbored and aided Jews to escape the Nazi’s? The “Final Solution” was “the law of the land” too — were they wrong?
I’m not suggesting that defying an unjust law is something EVERY believer is OBLIGATED to do. I AM saying that if a Christian in good conscience and by conviction cannot follow such an unjust law, then they MAY ignore, defy or resist it. I think the Bible and History will back me on this point...
So, here’s the important question — hypothetically, if I were to have aided this woman to take her daughter and escape this country to keep her from jail and the little girl from a deviant, dysfunctional pseudofamily, would you turn me in?
I’d like to know — one day I may need to know what “brother” or “sister” I can trust.
With the way our government is disregarding our Constitution and trampling on our liberties, at all levels and in all branches of government, I’m ready for some full on civil disobedience. Maybe it’s not the right time yet, but it soon will be. Now is the time to prepare.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.