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.
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.
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?
Natural Law always trumps human law.
"This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and 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: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."