The mother and the “pervert” were a gay couple in a binding civil union in Vermont.
It was an arrangement agreed to by both parties — and it is dishonest to ignore the mother’s culpability.
And in case that doesn’t sink in, the biological mother told the other woman to adopt her child — a move that they learned was unnecessary because the vermont civil union law automatically confers adoptive rights.
So the mother was looking to bind her child ot the other woman, regardless of how she feels now. She had the child with the other woman, and even in her complaints about how the other woman took no interest, you can read that she WANTED to have the child with the other woman.
If the other person wasn’t a female, I doubt we’d have all these arguments here, even though the law would be identical on the matter.
And here we run into the irrefutable facts of biology. A woman is not a man and cannot fulfill that role no matter what the law says.
Since VA does not recognize same sex "unions" there was no such union (since the mother and child live in VA.)