Judge Gives Miller 30 Days to Transfer Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover or Face Arrest

Life Site News ^ | RUTLAND, VERMONT, January 28, 2010 | Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

[GonzoII]

Friday January 29, 2010

---

Judge Gives Miller 30 Days to Transfer Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover or Face Arrest

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

RUTLAND, VERMONT, January 28, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Ex-Lesbian Lisa Miller has been given 30 days to transfer custody of her daughter to her former lesbian partner, or possibly face criminal penalties.

Although Vermont Judge Richard Cohen has so far refused to issue an arrest warrant for Miller, he has set a deadline of February 23rd for the transfer to take place.

If Miller does not appear during that time, Cohen said on January 22, "I will consider all possible sanctions under the law," according to the local Rutland Herald.

Such sanctions could include arrest and imprisonment for up to five years, a punishment that has been repeatedly requested by Miller's former partner, Janet Jenkins.

Miller disappeared following a December order by Cohen to turn her daughter Isabella over to Jenkins on January 1. 

Miller gave birth to Isabella through artificial insemination while in a civil union with Jenkins in 2003. Her daughter has no biological relationship with Jenkins.

Cohen ordered the transfer of custody after several failed attempts to arrange visitations with Jenkins, which were opposed by Miller, who claimed that her daughter was psychologically traumatized by them.  Miller has stated that her daughter spoke of wanting to die after returning from one visit, and said that she had been forced to bathe naked with Jenkins.  Miller also claims that she was abused by Jenkins during their relationship.

Miller's Facebook page, as well as the Protect Isabella Coalition page, appear to have been removed from the internet.

Previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Ex-Lesbian Lisa Miller "Disappears" as Date Passes for Court-Ordered Transfer of Daughter to Former Lover
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10010201.html

Exclusive Interview with Lisa Miller, Ex-Lesbian Fighting for Custody of Own Child against "Civil Union" Partner
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08102707.html

Lisa Miller Ordered to Hand Custody of Daughter to Former Lesbian Lover
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/nov/09112411.html

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10012901.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[OldDeckHand]

"There is no moral imperative to obey an unjust law, stevie."

I'm sure that's precisely the argument Kaleid Sheik Mohammad will be making at trial.

When we have people deciding what "just and unjust" laws they will or will not be following, we've lost the Republic.

[Antoninus]

When we have people deciding what "just and unjust" laws they will or will not be following, we've lost the Republic.

The Republic was nearly destroyed because it had grotesquely unjust laws once before--upheld by the Supreme Court, no less. I'm guessing that if you had been around in the 1850s, you wouldn't have been an abolitionist. And you'd be calling the prosecution and punishment of those who hid runaway slaves a perfectly legitimate business of the government.

Now, we have another proliferation of unjust laws. Predictably, we also have soulless legalists out there defending them.

[OldDeckHand]

"Predictably, we also have soulless legalists out there defending them."

And, we have brainless emoters advocating for judges to ignore the laws they don't agree with, in a promotion of judicial activism that hasn't been seen since Roe v Wade.

[darkangel82]

I noticed that too.

[Steve Van Doorn]

not the kid

[GCC Catholic]

When we have people deciding what "just and unjust" laws they will or will not be following, we've lost the Republic.

Genuine Christians will not and should not obey unjust laws, because they are out of conformity with Divine Law, which supercedes every law of man. Just laws, even if they speak on matters that are inherently amoral, are not contradictory to Divine Law. To know the difference requires an understanding of the Word of God and a well-formed conscience.

America was founded on a presupposition of Christian morality (even amongst those who were not Christian). We have moved away from that presupposition, leading to a proliferation of unjust laws; in doing so, we may have already lost the Republic.

[Jeb21]

“That is an insult of the highest order, sir.”

You’re ignoring G-ds laws. You’re ignoring the precedent of morality of over 3000 years. You are playing a very dangerous game. The Constitution, the law of the land, these are all great things. But they are not the Bible. They have faults, little and minute though they are. One of the reasons they have so little faults is because the Founding Fathers were religious people, and believed in the Bible. Thus, they prescribed laws accordingly. John Adams said that the Constitution cannot work for immoral people. Those were his words, not mine.

[OldDeckHand]

"Genuine Christians will not and should not obey unjust laws, because they are out of conformity with Divine Law, which supercedes every law of man."

Thanks for making your position clear - you believe that your particular Bible or theological interpretation trumps US law. I'm assuming then you won't mind if other people do the same - remember, do unto to others have you would have them do unto you?

So when a Muzzie decides to chop someone's head off because they don't like the cartoon that person has drawn about Allah, you've got no problem with that, right. After all, Divine law supersedes every law of man.

Every argument has a logical conclusion. I'm not sure I really like where the logical conclusion of your argument takes us, as a country.

[GCC Catholic]

Thanks for making your position clear - you believe that your particular Bible or theological interpretation trumps US law. I'm assuming then you won't mind if other people do the same - remember, do unto to others have you would have them do unto you?

No. That's not what I said at all.

I said that Christians have no moral obligation to obey unjust laws. And those same Christians have a moral obligation to fight to change those unjust laws.

Sometimes there are repercussions to breaking laws of the land that one deems "unjust" - it might end up being jail, it might end up being something worse. Dr. King ended up being thrown into the Birmingham Jail for his role in the civil rights movement. In this woman's case, it might end up being thrown in jail for "kidnapping" her own child, who she deems to be in danger. In the example you gave, said Muslim should end up on death row.

Don't draw "logical" conclusions where no such conclusions exist.

And it might do you some good to pick up a copy of "Democracy in America" and ponder at the damage done to our nation moving away from Christian morality.

[OldDeckHand]

"And those same Christians have a moral obligation to fight to change those unjust laws."

I'm all for fighting to legally change unjust laws. I'm completely against disobeying laws because they violate some personal sense of religious or philosophical superiority.

"it might end up being jail, it might end up being something worse. Dr. King ended up being thrown into the Birmingham Jail for his role in the civil rights movement."

I would hardly equate Dr. King's acts of civil disobedience with this woman's purposeful violation of a court order - an order only enforcing an agreement that she willfully entered into.

If you don't want to have lesbians in your life, then don't move in with them and enter into a civil contract with them, which is precisely what this lady did. I understand from another poster, that Miller went as far as to petition the court for child support payments from her "partner". You can't ask the court to intervene and then say "never-mind" when a ruling goes counter to your interest. It's un-American.

[GCC Catholic]

I would hardly equate Dr. King's acts of civil disobedience with this woman's purposeful violation of a court order - an order only enforcing an agreement that she willfully entered into.

Assuming that this woman is genuine about her conversion, the matter is exactly the same - disobeying a legal principle that is morally unjust (and this agreement was unjust even when she entered into it, even though she didn't think so at the time).

I understand from another poster, that Miller went as far as to petition the court for child support payments from her "partner". You can't ask the court to intervene and then say "never-mind" when a ruling goes counter to your interest. It's un-American.

I never heard about the child support payments... that is an interesting complication. From a legal perspective, it sounds like she's in a bad way without a whole lot to stand on.

That said, assuming I remember correctly, the "partner"'s current lifestyle is one that a court should deem harmful for the child regardless of the agreement that had been entered into (my opinion only, of course).

If you don't want to have lesbians in your life, then don't move in with them and enter into a civil contract with them, which is precisely what this lady did.

Have you never done anything in your life that you regret? At the time she did this, she wanted to; now, she believes what she did was wrong - I think it was a positive development for her, although it is a little late considering that there is a completely innocent child stuck in the middle.

I'm completely against disobeying laws because they violate some personal sense of religious or philosophical superiority.

I'm sorry you feel that way. For me (and I would assume a whole lot of other FReepers), God comes before country.

[montag813]

Can’t VA Gov Bob McDonnell intervene now that he is in office? It would be a very popular thing politically to tell the VT judge to go to hell by refusing to enforce his orders in VA.

[OldDeckHand]

"Have you never done anything in your life that you regret?"

Yes. I purchased a Chevrolet Tahoe a number of years ago. It was the worst mistake of my life. But, just because I changed my opinion of the Tahoe, I wasn't able to invalidate the contract I executed in good faith. That is the state of contract law in America - or at least it should be.

"God comes before country."

It did for Major Nidal Malik Hasan too. Unfortunately, 13 adults and one unborn baby are now all dead because of it.

[GCC Catholic]

"God comes before country."

It did for Major Nidal Malik Hasan too. Unfortunately, 13 adults and one unborn baby are now all dead because of it.

Wow... just wow. Thanks for making your position on religion clear.

Apparently for you, it's Country before God... even if it hastens the downfall of our nation.

Nothing more to say to you; good night.

[verity]

Perhaps you shall change your view when you are old enough to shave.

[Chickensoup]

this happens

[LastNorwegian]

The child didn’t enter into any agreements and the courts have no right to give that child away to a non-relative.

Children are not property to be handed out to former sex-partners as if they’re no more than furniture.

In case you missed it in history class your very country was founded by people who stood up against unjust laws. -Although unjust in a way that was entirely trivial compared to what is happening today. Would you say those men should have been hanged for their treason? Is that your definition of conservatism?

Morality trumps law and we are all responsible for the moral and immoral choices we make. Pointing to laws as a replacement for morals is just plain pathetic.

[OldDeckHand]

"The child didn’t enter into any agreements and the courts have no right to give that child away to a non-relative."

Yes, the court did have the "legal right" - a right given to the court when she signed her civil partnership agreements and filed that agreement (license) with the State of Vermont. I quoted the relevant VT statute in post #35. Read it. Educate yourself. You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

If this woman didn't want to introduce a lesbian into her daughter's life, she shouldn't have moved in with a lesbian. I don't know how much clearer that can be.

"Children are not property to be handed out to former sex-partners as if they’re no more than furniture."

Children are minors. When a couple who have joined into a marital or civil agreement - like these two women did - separate, then it's the court's responsibility to make a determination with respect to custody and visitation. Miller violated the court's orders on several occasions. As such, the court stripped her of her custodial privileges. It happens EVERY DAY in court rooms all across the country.

"Is that your definition of conservatism?"

Your argument it specious. My definition of legal conservatism is that jurists follow the law, and NOT decide cases based on religion or personal political philosophy. That's what you wish that this judge do. Judicial activism is bad, always.

"Pointing to laws as a replacement for morals is just plain pathetic." In this country, contracts matter. When you advocate that the courts and especially jurists start vacating or amending contracts on the basis of their morality - or your morality - you might as well join the Taliban.

[savagesusie]

The judge should be terminated...our constitution is based on Natural Law and God’s Laws, not perverse, unconstitutional laws and even Cicero said that laws that go against Natural Law and God’s Laws are unjust.