Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Gives Miller 30 Days to Transfer Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover or Face Arrest
Life Site News ^ | RUTLAND, VERMONT, January 28, 2010 | Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

Posted on 01/29/2010 11:13:04 AM PST by GonzoII

Friday January 29, 2010


Judge Gives Miller 30 Days to Transfer Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover or Face Arrest

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

RUTLAND, VERMONT, January 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ex-Lesbian Lisa Miller has been given 30 days to transfer custody of her daughter to her former lesbian partner, or possibly face criminal penalties.

Although Vermont Judge Richard Cohen has so far refused to issue an arrest warrant for Miller, he has set a deadline of February 23rd for the transfer to take place.

If Miller does not appear during that time, Cohen said on January 22, "I will consider all possible sanctions under the law," according to the local Rutland Herald.

Such sanctions could include arrest and imprisonment for up to five years, a punishment that has been repeatedly requested by Miller's former partner, Janet Jenkins.

Miller disappeared following a December order by Cohen to turn her daughter Isabella over to Jenkins on January 1. 

Miller gave birth to Isabella through artificial insemination while in a civil union with Jenkins in 2003. Her daughter has no biological relationship with Jenkins.

Cohen ordered the transfer of custody after several failed attempts to arrange visitations with Jenkins, which were opposed by Miller, who claimed that her daughter was psychologically traumatized by them.  Miller has stated that her daughter spoke of wanting to die after returning from one visit, and said that she had been forced to bathe naked with Jenkins.  Miller also claims that she was abused by Jenkins during their relationship.

Miller's Facebook page, as well as the Protect Isabella Coalition page, appear to have been removed from the internet.


Previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Ex-Lesbian Lisa Miller "Disappears" as Date Passes for Court-Ordered Transfer of Daughter to Former Lover
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10010201.html

Exclusive Interview with Lisa Miller, Ex-Lesbian Fighting for Custody of Own Child against "Civil Union" Partner
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102707.html

Lisa Miller Ordered to Hand Custody of Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112411.html

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012901.html


Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Vermont; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 2sick4words; courts; exgays; gounderground; homosexualadoption; homosexualagenda; law; lisamiller; moralabsolutes; ruling; underground; wrong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-126 next last
 Who is like unto God?........ Lk:10:18:
 And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven.
1 posted on 01/29/2010 11:13:04 AM PST by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

I can think of worse reasons to be arrested. Poor woman. Poor child. Prayers for them.


2 posted on 01/29/2010 11:16:02 AM PST by kimmie7 (THE CROSS - Today, Tomorrow and Always!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

“Ex-lesbian”

Better late than never, I suppose. Too bad she had to screw up another life in the process.


3 posted on 01/29/2010 11:17:56 AM PST by Past Your Eyes (You don't have to be ignorant to be a Democrat...but if you are...so what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes
Another whack job Vermont Judge. He is punishing her for not being a Lesbian anymore. I thought Vermont was supposed to secede?
4 posted on 01/29/2010 11:21:10 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Leave the country, until the child is grown.............


5 posted on 01/29/2010 11:22:11 AM PST by Red Badger (Education makes people easy to lead, difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
Courts force the child to bathe naked with non-relatives.
There has got be more to this story.
6 posted on 01/29/2010 11:22:16 AM PST by Steve Van Doorn (*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Homosexuality destroys society. And this is more proof that we never needed to see.

We have to protest this. Can’t anybody in the Christian Coalition or a popular talk radio host bring attention to this story organize a protest against this anti-family, anti-G-d Judge? WTH is Bill O’Reilly on this?


7 posted on 01/29/2010 11:23:53 AM PST by Jeb21 (www.jewsagainstobama.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

This judge is making a horrible mistake and the child will pay for it. Why is the judge doing this? Is he completely out of his mind?


8 posted on 01/29/2010 11:25:33 AM PST by MsLady (If you died tonight, where would you go? Salvation, don't leave earth without it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

If she was a smart women she got a passport long before it came to this and they are now living in a country with no extradition treaty with the USA.


9 posted on 01/29/2010 11:26:52 AM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
"Leave the country, until the child is grown............."

It wouldn't matter. Virtually every country in the world is a signatory to Hague and UN treaties against child-stealing. Wherever this woman goes (irrespective if that country does or does not have a formal extradition treaty with the US), with very few exceptions, she would be arrested, and even if she wouldn't be extradited back to the US, the child would be returned to the US.

These treaties were the foundation for the argument that eventually prevailed to return the US child in Brazil back to his New Jersey father.

10 posted on 01/29/2010 11:27:45 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: chris_bdba
"If she was a smart women she got a passport long before it came to this and they are now living in a country with no extradition treaty with the USA."

See my post #10.

11 posted on 01/29/2010 11:28:36 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

The FACTS of the case seem to be:

“Miller gave birth to Isabella...Her daughter has no biological relationship with Jenkins.”

What contorted mental constructions, what ephemeral abstractions must the judge be considering to want to take this child from her mother!


12 posted on 01/29/2010 11:28:49 AM PST by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

We need an underground railroad for evil judges such as this, to escape their clutches...just like the slaves escaped from the evil of slavery.

This literally makes me sick to my stomach. Their is no law whatsoever that compels a woman to give up her natural-born child to someone she had a sexual relationship with.

It’s like a woman being forced to give her baby over to a man she met in a bar and had a one-night stand with.

God help this country when evil men like this wear the robes of justice.

Ed


13 posted on 01/29/2010 11:29:04 AM PST by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

There’s a surprising amount of contempt for law and order on FR....


14 posted on 01/29/2010 11:29:17 AM PST by steve-b (Intelligent Design -- "A Wizard Did It")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
"There’s a surprising amount of contempt for law and order on FR...."

I have noticed that. This woman has no one to blame but herself for this mess. She failed to make an appearance at a number of hearings. So, as to be expected when a litigant is absent, the judge ruled against that litigant. If she had been responsible from the very beginning, almost all of this mishegas could have been avoided.

15 posted on 01/29/2010 11:32:20 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

In this case, the law is an ass.


16 posted on 01/29/2010 11:33:09 AM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

The Vatican....................


17 posted on 01/29/2010 11:36:32 AM PST by Red Badger (Education makes people easy to lead, difficult to drive; easy to govern, but impossible to enslave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; steve-b

Oh boy, here we go...the “Blame Lisa first” crowd.


18 posted on 01/29/2010 11:38:23 AM PST by Jeb21 (www.jewsagainstobama.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

She’s doing what I would do, tho — dropping off the face of the earth. She should seek sanctuary. And take this to the Supreme Court.


19 posted on 01/29/2010 11:39:35 AM PST by bboop (We don't need no stinkin' VAT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sir_Ed
"Their is no law whatsoever that compels a woman to give up her natural-born child to someone she had a sexual relationship with."

Yes there is. It's 28 USC § 1738A, Full faith and Credit for Child Custody Determinations.

The Vermont court made a visitation determination based on VT law. This biological mother elected to ignore that order when she moved to VA. The former domestic partner sued to enforce the visitation order, and when the biological mother refused to particpate in good-faith with those proceedings, the court ruled against her. No surprise.

No one held a gun to this woman and forced her to live with and engage in a lesbian relationship with her "partner". She entered into legally binding agreements - either implicit or explicit - that gave her "partner" certain parental rights. In this country, contracts matter. When you enter into them in good faith, you don't just get to change your mind when you change your personal philosophy. The court did what it should have - enforced the law and the contract.

20 posted on 01/29/2010 11:41:18 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MsLady
Why is the judge doing this?

The target is marriage, and ultimately, Christianity itself.

The judge is overstepping here, but the point is to give the homosexual superior rights in our society, as a direct attack on the institution of marriage which God created "in the beginning".

21 posted on 01/29/2010 11:41:51 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; chris_bdba

It is possible to “go underground” and drop out.
Not a life I’d like, but I would do it if my kids were going to be taken otherwise.


22 posted on 01/29/2010 11:43:41 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
If the "law" wants to try to take my daughter from me and give it to an ex with no biological relationship to my daughter, then it's time for some disobedience...



Under no circumstances should a judge be ruling this way. Either place the child in protective services if the parent is a danger, or cram it.
23 posted on 01/29/2010 11:44:08 AM PST by messierhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

Lisa Miller was counseled by Prince William County substance abuse counselor that she should consider that she was gay because she was having alcohol problems and marital problems that is the malpractice that led to this mess. We have the mental patients running many of these agencies that are supposed to help but are instead pushing a far left agenda in the name of medicine.


24 posted on 01/29/2010 11:46:01 AM PST by Maelstorm (We are umbilicaled to a parasitic beast that feeds off one man so to enslave another to dependency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jeb21

The Christian coalition my a$$, this will take hundreds of supporters with guns lining up in front of her.


25 posted on 01/29/2010 11:50:20 AM PST by 999replies (Thune/Rubio 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

The law when it is wrong should be challenged. I’d never let my children be taken away by liberals.


26 posted on 01/29/2010 11:50:36 AM PST by Maelstorm (We are umbilicaled to a parasitic beast that feeds off one man so to enslave another to dependency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

The law is wrong. The partner has not seen the child since shortly after she was born. She has no biological connection no financial and no emotional connection. This is a case of an affront to liberty. The law be damned.


27 posted on 01/29/2010 11:54:44 AM PST by Maelstorm (We are umbilicaled to a parasitic beast that feeds off one man so to enslave another to dependency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MrB
"The judge is overstepping here, but the point is to give the homosexual superior rights in our society, as a direct attack on the institution of marriage which God created "in the beginning". "

The judge is NOT overstepping. He is following the statutory state and federal law as well as the established binding precedent.

This is a conservative website that encourages judges to follow the law. To do otherwise, would be legislating from the bench as an activist judge. Apparently, there are many here that think the judge should ignore the law and rule on philosophical grounds, not legal grounds. No thanks.

If you don't like the law, then change it. But, don't bitch about the judge when he does precisely what he should.

28 posted on 01/29/2010 11:54:46 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

the mom is a liberal as well from the looks of things. she’s reaping what she sowed.


29 posted on 01/29/2010 11:55:12 AM PST by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

“There’s a surprising amount of contempt for law and order on FR....”

Thats because you don’t have any rights in America unless you have lots of money and a good lawyer. Radical judges and politicians show no respect for the law or justice.


30 posted on 01/29/2010 11:59:16 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

If Jenkins were a man the judge would not have ruled this way. I’ve never seen a judges grant custody to non biological fathers over biological mothers. It just never happens even in Vermont. This is a case of an activist judge overstepping. And even if it weren’t this law is an affront to liberty.


31 posted on 01/29/2010 11:59:45 AM PST by Maelstorm (We are umbilicaled to a parasitic beast that feeds off one man so to enslave another to dependency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
"The law be damned."

Ah, so you want the judiciary to follow the law when you agree with the law, but you want the law ignored when you disagree with the law? Do I need to point out your hypocrisy?

Judges need to follow the law - AT ALL TIMES.

32 posted on 01/29/2010 12:00:10 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

‘In this country, contracts matter”

Only for the left to get their way.


33 posted on 01/29/2010 12:01:36 PM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm
"If Jenkins were a man the judge would not have ruled this way.

So, now you're a fortune-teller. Can you email me with tonight's winning lottery numbers?

I’ve never seen a judges grant custody to non biological fathers over biological mothers."

It's not even my area of practice, yet I know of MANY cases where that very thing has happened. While it's true that courts grant deference to the biological mothers, it is NOT without precedent that non-biological fathers occasionally custody and they are virtually always granted some form of visitation.

And let's remember, that this mother was initially granted sole physical custody, with the non-biological mother being granted visitation. It is only after the biological mother failed to obey the court's order, that the court stripped her custodial privileges. She only has herself to blame, no one else.

34 posted on 01/29/2010 12:06:31 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Don’t agree. The woman never adopted this child. It is a twisted contortion of the law that she should get custody or even visitation rights. She is not the biological mom or even the adopted mom. This is just sick!

And this is one of the consequences of “gay marriage.”

When have you heard of a ex-husband who was not the biological father having legal rights to a child?


35 posted on 01/29/2010 12:09:45 PM PST by Essie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Wow...I’m gobsmacked.

You actually think this ruling is correct???

Amazing. It may have followed some weird sort of “contract” but how on Earth can it be right? The lesbian wasn’t the child’s mother, instead she was just someone the birth mother had sex with, and the court is taking the baby from the birth mother, giving it to the sex partner, and you think that’s just??

I would have loved to have seen your commentary before Solomon regarding the baby and the two women:

“Your Honor, section 15(a) subsection (d) of the Mosaic law demands that we disregard the birth mother’s wish to keep the baby safe, therefore we must sever the child in two and give each separate part to each of the two women, thus keeping the contract intact.”

Yikes, I can’t even wrap my head around your bizarre comment.

The baby belongs with her birth mother, not the sex partner, regardless of some bizarre “contract.”

Ed


36 posted on 01/29/2010 12:19:16 PM PST by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

Ex-Lesbian = Hasbian


37 posted on 01/29/2010 12:23:08 PM PST by Jack Hydrazine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

You have no sense of morals and no sense of justice.

Homosexuality is a sin that destroys nations. Its one of the things that causes depravity in society, and if allowed to flourish it will yield grave consequences.

Taking a child from a biological parent to someone who is not their biological parent, is evil. The mother is a good Christian woman and the ex is a perverted lesbian. Character makes all the difference when giving custody of a child to someone, and its obvious who has better character here.

You say its Lisa’s fault for missed deadlines, and it is true that there are legal consequences to that. But the punishment for missed deadline as implemented by the judge is ridiculously unjust. Turning the case around on her? Ruling in favor of her opponent? Why doesn’t a fine suffice? Answer me that.

Finally, you have said over, and over again that “the law is the law” as if by definition the law is always just. You and I both know that there are bad parts of the law in the US. Why it was just recently that a part of campaign finance reform was destroyed. Was CFR just when it was the law? Abortion is currently completely legal in the USA. Is that a just law?

Not all laws are good. The fact that there are good laws in the US doesn’t mean that bad laws don’t exist.


38 posted on 01/29/2010 12:24:00 PM PST by Jeb21 (www.jewsagainstobama.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Lex iniusta non est lex.


39 posted on 01/29/2010 12:25:18 PM PST by B Knotts (Calvin Coolidge Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

Inmates running the asylum, as it has always been with liberals.


40 posted on 01/29/2010 12:25:42 PM PST by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Essie
"Don’t agree. The woman never adopted this child."

You may not agree, but you're not right. You do not need to adopt a child in the state of Vermont to be entitled to visitation privileges, 15 VS § 1201. Miller, of her own free will, entered into a civil union with this other woman. As such, this woman now enjoys certain parenting rights, per VT law.

"When have you heard of a ex-husband who was not the biological father having legal rights to a child?"

It happens all the time.

41 posted on 01/29/2010 12:28:39 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Sir_Ed
"You actually think this ruling is correct???"

Apparently, you are a liberal as you only want the court to follow the laws that you agree with it. You and Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer would get along great.

Conservative-minded judges follow the law. Progressive judges make it up as they go along.

42 posted on 01/29/2010 12:31:04 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jeb21
"You have no sense of morals and no sense of justice."

That is an insult of the highest order, sir. You are COMPLETELY out of line.

You would have a judge ignore precedent and and the written law to come to a decision that agrees with your particular political point of view. You are a liberal.

43 posted on 01/29/2010 12:32:41 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Uh, yeah...I’m a liberal.

Right.

Ed


44 posted on 01/29/2010 12:36:14 PM PST by Sir_Ed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Jeb21
"But the punishment for missed deadline as implemented by the judge is ridiculously unjust."

This isn't a punishment, it's a ruling. This is a civil lawsuit where both parties are responsible for arguing their position. Ms. Miller ELECTED to not participate in the hearing, effectively ceding her case to the plaintiff giving the court no alternative but to rule in favor of the plaintiff.

I am shocked and dismayed that people who cloak themselves in a veil of conservatism are so shocked when a judge rules THE ONLY WAY HE COULD and still follow the law of the land.

Liberals are the people who want the judiciary to ignore the Constitution, common law and precedent and to reach a decision that they feel is just and correct. Feelings are for liberals, laws are for conservatives.

45 posted on 01/29/2010 12:37:37 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Perhaps it is you who is the liberal. IBTZ?


46 posted on 01/29/2010 12:40:17 PM PST by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Sir_Ed
"The lesbian wasn’t the child’s mother, instead she was just someone the birth mother had sex with,"

What part of "she entered into a civil union - a legally binding contract - of her own free will" don't you understand. She entered into an agreement with this woman.

It's not the court's prerogative or place to determine if it was a good thing, or a moral decision to enter into such a contract. But, it is the court's obligation to determine the enforceability of such an agreement. The precedent is clear for both the VT judge who initially granted visitation rights to the lesbian partner, and for the VA who followed the appropriate US Federal Law on interstate custody agreements.

Once again, you wish to have the court IGNORE the law to reach a conclusion that you believe to be fair and just. You may not think you're a liberal, but THAT is a liberal argument for their kind of legal system.

47 posted on 01/29/2010 12:43:01 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: kimmie7

And the one the child has to be given to ISN’T THE REAL PARENT!


48 posted on 01/29/2010 12:44:11 PM PST by Freddd (CNN is not credible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: darkangel82
"Perhaps it is you who is the liberal. "

Perhaps it's you who can't understand the elementary aspects of American jurisprudence. Perhaps. IBTI.

49 posted on 01/29/2010 12:44:30 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I understand it perfectly. Now run along troll, DU is calling.


50 posted on 01/29/2010 12:46:21 PM PST by darkangel82 (I don't have a superiority complex, I'm just better than you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-126 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson