Skip to comments.
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
Posted on 01/29/2010 11:13:04 AM PST by GonzoII
![](http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/newtemplate/LifeSiteNewsLogo.jpg)
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.
|
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Vermont; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 2sick4words; courts; exgays; gounderground; homosexualadoption; homosexualagenda; law; lisamiller; moralabsolutes; ruling; underground; wrong
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-126 next last
To: Jeb21
"The Constitution, the law of the land, these are all great things. But they are not the Bible. And do you think it should be? In this country, just like people have a right to live their lives in a manner consistent with the literal word of the bible, people also enjoy the same rights to completely ignore the Bible and practice some other religion. This hasn't weakened religion in America, it's strengthened it.
Founding Fathers were religious people, and believed in the Bible.
I'm sure some did. Of course, others were Deist, so not so much. Of course, that begs the question "which Bible" did they read? Have you ever read the Jefferson Bible. You should. You might find it enlightening.
In any event, what the Framers didn't do is make the Bible the law of the land. They could have, but elected not to. Instead, they wrote their own laws and codified those laws into our Constitution.
"John Adams said that the Constitution cannot work for immoral people. Those were his words, not mine."
They certainly were. Just curious, did Adams happen to identify who the morality police were? Precisely where are these morality police, and what our my rights with them? Where can I petition for grievances with these morality police? See where I'm going here.
We have a set of rules in this country called laws. The people elect representatives to make or amend those laws. Sometimes those representatives - and the judges they appoint and confirm - do what we like, sometimes they don't. But we don't get to selectively follow the laws we agree with and ignore the ones we don't based on our own personal sense philosophical or moral superiority.
We have people in this country who do that now. They're called Jihadist. We don't need anymore than we already have to endure.
To: OldDeckHand
It wouldn't matter. Virtually every country in the world is a signatory to Hague and UN treaties against child-stealing. Wherever this woman goes (irrespective if that country does or does not have a formal extradition treaty with the US), with very few exceptions, she would be arrested, and even if she wouldn't be extradited back to the US, the child would be returned to the US. Actually you are mistaken, comparably there are less countries who are a party with the United States in the Hague Convention than there are who are. Further, you assume that people in those other countries would actively be looking for her anyway.
These treaties were the foundation for the argument that eventually prevailed to return the US child in Brazil back to his New Jersey father.
It took more than 5 years.
To: OldDeckHand
There is a public policy exception to both the FF&C Clause, and to contracts. No one has a right to have a court enforce a contract that contravenes public policy.
To: OldDeckHand
This is a conservative website that encourages judges to follow the law. To do otherwise, would be legislating from the bench as an activist judge. Apparently, there are many here that think the judge should ignore the law and rule on philosophical grounds, not legal grounds. No thanks. Natural Law always trumps human law.
"This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."
To: OldDeckHand
I'm sure that's precisely the argument Kaleid Sheik Mohammad will be making at trial. Argumentum Ad Hominem.
When we have people deciding what "just and unjust" laws they will or will not be following, we've lost the Republic.
Funny that you say that, especially when the Framers did exactly that.
To: OldDeckHand
We have a set of rules in this country called laws. The people elect representatives to make or amend those laws. Sometimes those representatives - and the judges they appoint and confirm - do what we like, sometimes they don't. But we don't get to selectively follow the laws we agree with and ignore the ones we don't based on our own personal sense philosophical or moral superiority. Except even you don't believe that. If the Representatives passed a law tomorrow requiring you to turn in your guns would you do it?
If the Constitution were amended to force you to put members of your family on cattle cars headed for a gas chamber, I am sure that you would follow it to the letter. Right? After all, the law is the law.
No, even YOU have a point where you would disregard laws that conflict with your notions of morality. Everyone does.
To: freedomwarrior998
"Argumentum Ad Hominem." Says you. So what? "Funny that you say that, especially when the Framers did exactly that."
Funny, I don't remember the Framers declaring independence from a Republic. I'm pretty sure it was a monarchy. Maybe you have different history books than I do.
To: OldDeckHand
Says you. So what? You do recognize that what KSM might or might not do is irrelevant?
Funny, I don't remember the Framers declaring independence from a Republic. I'm pretty sure it was a monarchy. Maybe you have different history books than I do.
So your position is that it is OK to break the laws of a Monarchy, but not those of a Republic? Isn't the law the law? Doesn't one have to work within the system to change it without resorting to breaking the law? Is breaking the law never an option?
To: freedomwarrior998
"No one has a right to have a court enforce a contract that contravenes public policy." Precisely what public policy is this ruling contravening? Two years ago, the Virginia Supreme Court heard the visitation rights case with these very litigants. The court sided with the plaintiff - the lesbian partner. The judge was following the law. You just don't like the law.
To: OldDeckHand
Precisely what public policy is this ruling contravening? Virginia has a public policy against same-sex unions. It should not be enforcing any policy
Two years ago, the Virginia Supreme Court heard the visitation rights case with these very litigants. The court sided with the plaintiff - the lesbian partner.
On what grounds? Was it on the merits or not?
The judge was following the law. You just don't like the law.
Which law?
To: freedomwarrior998
"So your position is that it is OK to break the laws of a Monarchy, but not those of a Republic? Isn't the law the law? Doesn't one have to work within the system to change it without resorting to breaking the law? Is breaking the law never an option? " The Framers created a system where the people - through this representative system of government - create laws. We, as a civil society, live within the confines of those laws. You're comparing the laws of today with the edicts of a monarch, to what end, apparently only you know. What relevance there is to a child custody case, is a mystery to all but you.
To: freedomwarrior998
Ooops: My post should read:
"Virginia has a public policy against same-sex unions. It should not be enforcing any policy contrary to the laws of the State of Virginia."
To: OldDeckHand
The Framers created a system where the people - through this representative system of government - create laws. We, as a civil society, live within the confines of those laws. You're comparing the laws of today with the edicts of a monarch, to what end, apparently only you know. What relevance there is to a child custody case, is a mystery to all but you. So, England didn't have a Parliament? In any case, you still didn't answer the question. Is it OK to break the laws of a monarchy (or other non-republican form of government) but not the laws of a Republic? What makes the laws of a Republic more valid than the laws in other forms of government? You seem to assert the position that the law is the law, and breaking the law is never an option.
So let's go with that. Is it ever OK to break the law? If yes, then under what circumstances? If No, then why were the Framers OK in breaking the laws that they were subject to?
To: OldDeckHand
The Framers created a system where the people - through this representative system of government - create laws. We, as a civil society, live within the confines of those laws. You're comparing the laws of today with the edicts of a monarch, to what end, apparently only you know. What relevance there is to a child custody case, is a mystery to all but you. Does this also mean that you agree that Baker v. Nelson is the law (and thus Vaughn Walker is bound to follow it.) And that Prop 8 in California is a law that must be respected and followed?
To: freedomwarrior998
What law Post #35 - I cited the relevant VI statute. That is the statute that the VT judge used to grant visitation to the non-biological parent. The VI Supreme Court upheld that visitation order. That details of that decision may be read here.
To: freedomwarrior998
"Does this also mean that you agree that Baker v. Nelson is the law (and thus Vaughn Walker is bound to follow it.)" It's certainly the law in MN. IIRC, the US Supreme Court denied cert in that case.
"And that Prop 8 in California is a law that must be respected and followed?"
It's certainly the law in California.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
To: freedomwarrior998
"If No, then why were the Framers OK in breaking the laws that they were subject to? The Framers declared the independence from a monarchy to build a representative Republic. If you're advocating open rebellion and insurrection over a child custody case. Have at it, old boy. Let me know how it works out for you.
To: freedomwarrior998
""Virginia has a public policy against same-sex unions. It should not be enforcing any policy contrary to the laws of the State of Virginia." " The Virginia Supreme court didn't find that argument compelling. They ruled, unanimously, against the biological mother.
To: OldDeckHand
It's certainly the law in MN. IIRC, the US Supreme Court denied cert in that case. Wrong. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed Baker. A dismissal for "want of a substantial question" is NOT simply a denial of cert. "[A] dismissal by the Supreme Court is an adjudication on the merits. . . a lower federal court must consider itself bound by the dismissal when a similar challenge comes before it."
"[D]ismissals for want of a substantial federal question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the statement of jurisdiction". Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977).
Summary decisions "prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions." Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)
Baker is the law of the Land, not just California. So again, do you agree that since it is the law, Vaughn Walker is obliged to follow it? (Since the jurisdictional statement in Baker specifically included both Due Process and Equal Protection grounds.)
To: OldDeckHand
The Framers declared the independence from a monarchy to build a representative Republic. If you're advocating open rebellion and insurrection over a child custody case. Have at it, old boy. Let me know how it works out for you. I find your lack of a response quite telling. It certainly says a lot for your position that "the law is the law."
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120, 121-126 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson