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

[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.

[OldDeckHand]

"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.

[OldDeckHand]

"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.

[OldDeckHand]

"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.

[Sir_Ed]

Uh, yeah...I’m a liberal.

Right.

Ed

[OldDeckHand]

"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.

[darkangel82]

Perhaps it is you who is the liberal. IBTZ?

[OldDeckHand]

"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.

[Freddd]

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

[OldDeckHand]

"Perhaps it is you who is the liberal. "

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

[darkangel82]

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

[OldDeckHand]

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

Yeah, I don't think so. Back to your mommy's basement, jerk.

[Venturer]

P{ersonally I think the Judge should be locked up, but then the only innocent one involved in this mess is the Child.

[El Sordo]

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

Sadly, many people are far more emotion driven than they will admit or even realize.

[Pikachu_Dad]

If those states sign the “Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act” (UCAPA) then they can already take the child.

[Pikachu_Dad]

you do understand that she had sought to get ‘child support’ from her ex-lesbian lover !

[Antoninus]

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

There is no moral imperative to obey an unjust law, stevie. And that's just what this is. So can it.

[Pikachu_Dad]

bingo... we have a winner.

the ‘fake christian’ is using us to try to spread gay marriage from one state to another.

that is the purpose of this case and why she undermined her side of it. she wanted to lose.

she is part of the gay marriage crowd.

[Antoninus]

In this case, the law is an ass.

Have you noticed that guys like "steve-b" had nothing but contempt for the law when things like sodomy, porn, and abortion were illegal. But now that they are not only legal, but God-given rights, they suddenly become strict legalists.

Hey stevie, are you still such a strict legalist when it comes to drugs, too?

[Styria]

Who is she related to?

[RetiredNavy]

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

Lost the argument so you resort to personal attacks?

While I don’t agree with the law that forced the ruling, I agree with Deckhand that the ruling was correct. I also agree with him that the entire incident was/is the fault of the “birth mother”.

I also agree with him/her that those that want to replace the law with their personal sense of morality are wrong. They are firing from their FEEEEELLLLLLINGS and should consider who currently has their finger on the nation’s nuclear trigger. Do you want to entrust your entire existance on Obama’s personal sense of morality? Or do you want to continue with our current representative form of Government?