Yes there is. It's 28 USC § 1738A, Full faith and Credit for Child Custody Determinations.
The Vermont court made a visitation determination based on VT law. This biological mother elected to ignore that order when she moved to VA. The former domestic partner sued to enforce the visitation order, and when the biological mother refused to particpate in good-faith with those proceedings, the court ruled against her. No surprise.
No one held a gun to this woman and forced her to live with and engage in a lesbian relationship with her "partner". She entered into legally binding agreements - either implicit or explicit - that gave her "partner" certain parental rights. In this country, contracts matter. When you enter into them in good faith, you don't just get to change your mind when you change your personal philosophy. The court did what it should have - enforced the law and the contract.
The law is wrong. The partner has not seen the child since shortly after she was born. She has no biological connection no financial and no emotional connection. This is a case of an affront to liberty. The law be damned.
‘In this country, contracts matter”
Only for the left to get their way.
Wow...I’m gobsmacked.
You actually think this ruling is correct???
Amazing. It may have followed some weird sort of “contract” but how on Earth can it be right? The lesbian wasn’t the child’s mother, instead she was just someone the birth mother had sex with, and the court is taking the baby from the birth mother, giving it to the sex partner, and you think that’s just??
I would have loved to have seen your commentary before Solomon regarding the baby and the two women:
“Your Honor, section 15(a) subsection (d) of the Mosaic law demands that we disregard the birth mother’s wish to keep the baby safe, therefore we must sever the child in two and give each separate part to each of the two women, thus keeping the contract intact.”
Yikes, I can’t even wrap my head around your bizarre comment.
The baby belongs with her birth mother, not the sex partner, regardless of some bizarre “contract.”
Ed
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.