Posted on 11/12/2008 9:05:45 AM PST by PercivalWalks
I've often discussed the issue of the rights of lesbian “social mothers”–women who agreed to employ a sperm donor so that they could have children with their lesbian partners, who are the biological mothers.
I do believe that children fare best when they have both a mom and a dad, and that fathers offer much to children that mothers don’t provide. However, this is not possible in lesbian couples.
When two lesbians agree to have a child together, and when the child has bonded with both his or her biological mother and his or her social mother, I believe that the relationship between the child and the social mother should be protected. I also believe that the biological mother has a responsibility to her children and to her former partner to hold up her end of the deal with the partner with whom she created the child, and that courts should hold her to her commitment.
These cases are now becoming routine. When the relationship goes sour, the lesbian biological mom does to her ex exactly what heterosexual mothers so often do to their ex-husbands--drive her out of her child’s life. When heterosexual women do this, our society makes excuses for them and assumes that the ex-husband must have done something bad to merit it. With these lesbian breakups we can see the truth much clearer--some women (straight or gay) are vindictive, and this vindictiveness drives them to purge their exes from their children’s lives.
The article below details the latest in the Lisa Miller-Janet Jenkins custody battle, which I have covered on numerous occasions. The former couple joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000 and had a child together in 2002. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl's life.
Jenkins had been involved in Miller's pregnancy from the beginning, was present in the delivery room, worked to support the family, and played an important role in Isabella's life.
Following their breakup, Jenkins was granted visitation rights but Miller refused to comply. Jenkins has pursued a long, hard legal battle to get back in her daughter's life.
From Lisa Miller Held in Contempt of Court for Refusing Child Visitation to Former Lesbian Lover (LifeSiteNews, 10/29/08):
Lisa Miller, a woman who has repudiated the lesbian lifestyle, was held in contempt of court yesterday for refusing to allow child visitation for her former lesbian lover, Janet Jenkins.
Miller, 40, says she decided to discontinue the court-ordered visitations following accounts by her six-year-old daughter, Isabella, of being forced to bathe naked with Jenkins, 44. Miller also reports that her daughter expressed the desire to commit suicide, and experienced other disturbing behavioral changes following visits with Jenkins.
Although the judge deferred any determination regarding punishment, he ordered new visitation dates for Jenkins during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, despite being informed of sworn testimony from counselors and other witnesses containing evidence that the visits are damaging to the child...
Read the full article here.
Notice several common themes:
1) Miler has violated court orders on numerous occasions but isn't punished.
2) Miller goes into a fake "visits with my ex are harming my child" routine, when the only possible harm is caused by Miller's hysteria & animus towards her ex, and the fact that she cut the child off from her ex for so long.
3) Obviously false charges--a six-year-old wants to commit suicide?
4) As in the cases of Michelle Kulstad, Sara Wheeler, and numerous others, the lesbian biological mother is so vindictive that she has employed an anti-gay group to legally pursue her vendetta against her ex.
5) Notice how the religious right--who some of my readers insist are our friends--plays along with every bit of Miller's cruel, alienating, and vindictive behavior.
To learn more about these cases in general, see my co-authored column Lesbian child custody battles and heterosexual divorce (World Net Daily, 8/5/08). To learn more about Miller-Jenkins, click here.
True, so these 'lesbian couples' should not be so selfish as to bring a child into such a perverted situation.
The child is not her DAUGHTER!
Slippery, meet Slope.
It’s not her mom. It’s not her dad. It’s just a friend of their mothers who engaged in perverted acts with their mother.
Seriously, this is why lesbian couples should not be adopting or acquiring sperm for the false creation of a family in the first place.
So, mom’s bff now can demand visitation rights? Great!
Jenkis argued that the mother was unfit because she became a Born-Again Christian. There is also a problem that those court orders from out of state have no authority in Virginia.
This isn't possible. One gives birth, the other is merely a spectator and had nothing to do with conceiving a child.
False creation of a family? So by that token, should heterosexual couples not be allowed to adopt either, as the child is not their “real” child? Doesn’t that kind of put a damper on the frequent assertion on these boards that abortion is unnecessary when so many loving people would love to adopt?
This kind of thing really hurts the writer's overall credibility, especially when he argues at another time that a man who once lived with a child's mother should not owe support for the child when the adults separate, even if the child considers him a parentlike figure.
She is not the child's mother. She is a woman who once lived with the child's mother.
This is my 2 cents about custody issues in a divorce situation.
Parties in a divorce setting are ending the relationship due to discord and conflict (typically). Oftentimes, the parties have reached a point where it is no longer healthy to continue engaging in that relationship. Sadly, in my opinion, mature individuals learn how to reconcile their differences and maintain some cordiality, but usually in a divorce at least one of the parties chooses to respond in a self centered, immature manner.
That being said, the ultimate goal in raising a child is to raise a healthy, stable child who can function in society as they mature. Sadly, I think the current family law system which advocates joint custody fails to truly look at the chief objective: the child. The court system/family law code has created an idealistic mandate which advocates joint custody and tries to compel both parents involvement. There are enough scenarios out there where truly one parent should not be involved.
I think in the Jenkins matter, it is clear that Ms. Miller has kept her daughter’s interest at heart. Many women have friends with them in the labor room - but that does not entitle them to continue a relationship with them after the child is born. Ms. Jenkins is trying to argue otherwise under the guise of “parent” when she is not. She’s just a woman who had an intimate relationship with Ms. Miller during a pregnancy. That relationship has ended and Ms. Miller is trying to go on with her life. She’s chosen to reject an alternate lifestyle and raise her daughter in a manner that she deems appropriate for the development of a healthy child. Clearly, the best solution is to raise her daughter in a stable environment. A child should not be subjected to the stresses of 2 divergent lifestyles.
Psychological studies are out there which attest that a child raised in an alternative lifestyle tend to have more emotional needs as they enter the teens. Many teachers will attest to their own observations about children raised in gay/lesbian environments (that is just coffee room /neighbor over the fence talk).
I believe Ms. Miller it is improper for Ms. Miller to continue to seek a relationship with Ms. Jenkins’ daughter. I find it disturbing that a courtroom has been involved and that the judge is not viewing this with more sensibility. I know the left/right coastal people may hold different opinions on this, but sometimes you can no longer call things gray when it’s obvious that things are black/white. I am praying for this family.
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.