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.
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.
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.
There was no relationship between the pervert and the child.
The child was born to Lisa Miller, who at the time lived with another unrelated person. The pervert has no possible claim to the child.
The "nightmare" occurred because the people who approved public recognition of sexually perverted "unions" were not lynched like they should been.
If she allowed some visitation in the first place this nightmare would not have occurred.
- - - - -
The reasons the visitations were halted is because the mother had reasonable suspicions that the “partner” had been touching the little girl inappropriately and had filed charges.
She did comply with visitation until her daughter started coming back and having nightmares and telling stories of being forced to bath with the other woman. After that the Mother tried to have visitation supervised or stopped and lost on both counts. What was she supposed to do allow the abuse of her kid and keep turning her over?