The woman awarded custody shares absolutely zero DNA with the child. The woman who is her natural mother, and who wants the child, and who is willing to risk jail to keep her child, is the one who will not get the child.
The only answer is emigration to another nation where she can hide. I don’t know where that would be.
Perhaps she could disappear into one of our own remote states: Alaska, Montana.
Disappearing sounds like the only answer to such an unreasonable decision. When can children choose where they live: 14 years old?
Since the child was born in a Civil Union rather than as a product of conception between a husband and wife the judge in this case is attempting to treat the child as a piece of chattle rather than as the child of its biological mother. In effect the court is attempting to enforce the provisions of a civil contract by treating the child as if she were nothing more than a piece of property to be divided at the dissolution of a business partnership.
If I recall correctly that kind of thing was abolished by the 13th amendment.
But then judges these days don’t seem to know that such a document even exists.