Since the child was born in a Civil Union rather than as a product of conception between a husband and wife the judge in this case is attempting to treat the child as a piece of chattle rather than as the child of its biological mother. In effect the court is attempting to enforce the provisions of a civil contract by treating the child as if she were nothing more than a piece of property to be divided at the dissolution of a business partnership.
If I recall correctly that kind of thing was abolished by the 13th amendment.
But then judges these days don’t seem to know that such a document even exists.
Vermont being among our most brain-dead states, it makes sense to believe their judges have no idea about the 13th amendment.
I see no hope for any appeal in this state, even though your comment is right on the money show an egregious error in law. And, even if they got the appeal, their judges are like-minded from the same cookie cutter.
The issue wouldn’t be law, it would be their determination to define “civil union” as a precise equivalent of “marriage” AND to force/underscore the idea that homosexuality is Vermont’s new family norm.