Posted on 01/01/2010 3:59:14 PM PST by Steelfish
A man this wek finally got his child back from Brazil.
His wife kidnapped the child and went to Brazil and he had to fight the family of his exwife’s husband to get the child back. Now they say they will try to get the child back from the natural father.
At the same time a Dyke with no natural ability to father a child is given custody of a child from the natiral mother.
I do not have any use for a natural mother who is queer and had her child by turkey baster, but she is the natural mother and should have custody, before this other fruit.
Now I know some will not agree with that, but it’s my story and I am sticking to it.
If she allowed some visitation in the first place this nightmare would not have occurred.
She entered into the relationship. A child was born into the relationship.
She changed her mind and now has decided to deny the other ‘mother’ any visitation.
Unless the rumors in Post #11 are true...in which case I applaud the mother. Regardless of past mistakes (which are now forgiven) her first priority is to protect her child.
That is my understanding as well.
>> A child was born into the relationship <<
Excuse me? What does the “relationship” have to do with a mother’s bond to her natural child? The Vermont woman had nothing to do with the birth. Just because she was in a lesbian relationship with the mother, or even if she “manned” the turkey baster, I fail to see why she should have any rights vis-à-vis another woman’s child.
And shame on any Virginia judge who would enforce the crazy Vermont judge’s order. Virginia doesn’t recognize “civil unions” and should be under no obligation to give full faith and credit to Vermont’s recognition of such.
>> Miller is a fool. She will be caught, she’ll be thrown in prison <<
Don’t forget that Virginia will inaugurate a pro-life governor in a few days. He can and should pardon her. Moreover the Virginia legislature can and should nullify the irresponsible rulings handed down in this case by the Virginia courts.
“The judge who ordered such visitation is simply an idiot.”
The Judge awarded CUSTODY, not visitation. This was to be a permanent transfer.
As for allowing visitation, the child reported earlier that she was molested on an earlier visitation to Vermont, and that the woman ‘took baths with her’.
That’s when Lisa Miller cut off all visitation. This case should have been open and shut. The problem is that the gay rights activists are trying to establish two things here.
1. There are no ‘ex-gays’, and anyone who claims to be ‘ex-gay’ is an unfit parent.
2. The civil union even after divorce entitles one to visitation, etc. Nevermind the fact that no ADOPTION papers were ever filed, etc.
“The judge who ordered such visitation is simply an idiot.”
The Judge awarded CUSTODY, not visitation. This was to be a permanent transfer.
As for allowing visitation, the child reported earlier that she was molested on an earlier visitation to Vermont, and that the woman ‘took baths with her’.
That’s when Lisa Miller cut off all visitation. This case should have been open and shut. The problem is that the gay rights activists are trying to establish two things here.
1. There are no ‘ex-gays’, and anyone who claims to be ‘ex-gay’ is an unfit parent.
2. The civil union even after divorce entitles one to visitation, etc. Nevermind the fact that no ADOPTION papers were ever filed, etc.
“Yeh, don’t worry...If I see her...I’ll report her....I mean, really I will...really....”
Me also... really.... ;-)
“The judge who ordered such visitation is simply an idiot.”
The Judge awarded CUSTODY, not visitation. This was to be a permanent transfer.”
It appears that there are no lawyers/attorneys left in our culture who have ...OK.....a pair...a set...something in their pants....
Is This new world culture filled with John Kerrys’ and that idiot Berny/Barny Frank....
Sorry it’s late... and I am a lady who is a little angry ...
The judge was "interpreting law" by completely disregarding the interests of the child and giving full legal custody to a dike ex-partner who the child didn't even know? It was a completely subjective, illogical and arbitrary decision that had nothing to do with any strict interpretation of law.
I’m outraged!!!!!!!! the judge needs to be hung from the court house steps!
Legally, she was the adoptive mother of the baby, through the civil union laws of Vermont.
But the divorce decree had granted custody to the natural mother, with visitation rights only to the other mother.
The natural mother violated the court decree for visitation rights. She was fined repeatedly, but still did not maintain the legal visitation she had agreed to in the divorce, nor go through the proper legal channels to change the visitation order.
So the judge finally had to award custody to the other woman, who promised to maintain the visitation rights of the natural mother.
This was a legal battle, with the hope that Virginia law would be interpreted as invalidating civil court rulings of other states. But the Virginia judges, through the Supreme Court, rejected that argument.
Virginia courts are not liberal. The lack of respect for basic law from some conservatives is a bit appalling.
On the legal matter, the Vermont Civil Union law provides adoptive rights to the non-biological partner — no direct adoption is needed.
On the “molestation” charges, first, I’ve yet to find a competent news source that states that the child reported molestation. I’ve seen claims by the mother. Second, Virginia child protective services investigated the claims, and found no basis to them. If you know much about CPS, you know they rarely err on the side of missing real molestation.
The judge awarded custody because previous rulings to enforce visitation rights were unsuccessful. Miller has refused to obey any judge’s order for visitation, despite fines. Custody was the only tool left short of putting the woman in prison (which is coming), and the ruling was not expected to substantially change the amount of time either woman spent with the child.
Common sense would say that the girl belongs with her natural mother, not some stranger who is not a blood relative. It's like giving your child to some stranger on the street. Where is the father in all of this?
Does the 7 year old child know that she has a father, not two mommys? She belongs with her natural mother, and hopefully, a husband.
They wanted homosexual marriage. They GOT it! And this is exactly the kind of thing we can look forward to in the future. Lots of messy break ups.
This is going to be status quo for a lot of homosexual marriages, despite the media trumpeting the few homosexual “relationships” that last.
What a tragedy. I’m glad she now sees the light, but under the law, she has to let a homosexual access to her child. Period. That is the law.
No. We can't have it both ways and shouldn't. The people of Vermont enacted a law and the judge is bound by that law. He/she only gets to judge in the interest of the child when it's not contrary to the law. Law: it's just that. They enact a LAW and nothing but the state's constitution can run contrary to it in his/her ruling. That's why we are such a stable nation; we are a nation of law and order. That's why Roe vs. Wade was so bad; the court decided in favor of what they perceived as moral against what the law was - thus legislating from the bench. Besides, this judge didn't give full legal custody to the dyke; he merely gave visitation rights in accordance with their LAW. With that said, I am in favor of their civil disobedience to that law and would aid the lady if I knew her. But, the judge is not at fault here; the legislature and both of these ladies are.
Legal custody was being taken from Miller because she refused to follow court orders for visitation when she had sole custody of the child. The other woman promised to maintain visitation for Miller.
The child did know the other woman — they lived together for the 1st years of her life, and after their divorce visitation was maintained until the girl was 6.
The judge was ruling in the interest of the child, as it is unfortunately interepreted in modern culture. No judge is going to be able to legally rule that a homosexual parent is unfit simply because they are homosexual — no matter how much we wish that were the case.
There is way too much misinformation to have a rational conversation about this.
You are dead wrong. This is not a child molester judge. The judges hands are completely tied by the law.
The minute 2 dikes decided they wanted to have a kid, they BOTH became the child’s legal parents. That is the law. And when one divorced the other, the law recognizes the right of BOTH parents to raise their child. Period.
As far as I am concerned, I think homosexual adoption and child rearing should be illegal. A child needs a mommy and daddy, not two of one sex. But as long as states pass laws allowing for dykes to marry and allow them to have children by artificial inseminiation or adoption, then the laws must be followed. And tragically, the law is that both the current and former dyke are the child’s legal parents. I don’t like that, but that is the law. So long as that is the law, the former dyke has no right to deprive the current dyke parent of that person’s legal child.
I completely disagree that she should run off with the child. She made her bed and she has to lie in it. No different than a man getting a woman pregnant and then not wanting to support the child. She had a child with another person and she has no right to deprive the other person of access to their child.
She blew it. She should have done what is right, shared custody, and made it clear to the child that homosexuality is wrong. Now she is going to lose her child to the current dyke permanently.
Tragic.
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.