[MEGoody]

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.

True, so these 'lesbian couples' should not be so selfish as to bring a child into such a perverted situation.

[Former Fetus]

Jenkins has pursued a long, hard legal battle to get back in her daughter's life.

The child is not her DAUGHTER!

[frogjerk]

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.

Slippery, meet Slope.

[jyoders19]

Seriously, this is why lesbian couples should not be adopting or acquiring sperm for the false creation of a family in the first place.

[mockingbyrd]

So, mom’s bff now can demand visitation rights? Great!

[DJ MacWoW]

When two lesbians agree to have a child together

This isn't possible. One gives birth, the other is merely a spectator and had nothing to do with conceiving a child.

[tevens]

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.