Skip to comments.Homosexual Groups, ACLU Aid Lesbian Seeking Visitation
Posted on 12/08/2004 11:34:17 PM PST by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - Two homosexual advocacy groups and the American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday appealed the case of a lesbian woman who is being denied visitation with the daughter she had with her former partner.
Janet Miller-Jenkins is seeking to enforce a court order from a Vermont court that granted her regular visitation with the two-year-old daughter she and her former lover, Lisa Miller-Jenkins, had when they were joined in a Vermont civil union.
"My daughter has a right to have access to both of the parents she was born to. I'm in this for her -- she is all that matters," said Janet Miller-Jenkins.
After Janet's relationship with Lisa ended, Lisa moved to Virginia with their daughter and asked a Vermont court to dissolve their civil union and rule on child custody. When the court ordered visitation for Janet, Lisa filed a new lawsuit in Virginia court, using that state's law against same-sex "marriage" to have herself declared the child's sole legal parent.
The conflicting court orders -- one from Vermont ordering regular visitation for Janet, and the other from Virginia naming Lisa the sole parent -- led to Wednesday's appeal, which asks a state court to overturn the Virginia ruling.
The ACLU of Virginia, Equality Virginia and Lamba Legal have intervened on Janet Miller-Jenkins behalf by filing an appeal which cites the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act and Virginia's Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
The groups claim both laws make it clear that the Vermont court alone has jurisdiction in the case and cannot be interfered with. The federal kidnapping law requires that the Vermont order be enforced in Virginia, the groups contend.
The lower court in Virginia was "way off base" to ignore a "well thought-out and effective federal law designed to prevent this kind of jurisdiction-shopping by parents who are unhappy with their custody arrangements," said Greg Nevins, senior staff attorney in Lambda Legal's southern regional office in Atlanta, Ga.
"The marriage law Lisa's attorneys are using doesn't apply here -- federal law governing custody arrangements trumps it all. The Vermont court had already begun considering this case and it alone has jurisdiction over it. Period," Nevins said.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
NOWHERE do they mention that the birth mother no longer considers herself to be a lesbian. A BIG issue for those who push the homosexual agenda.
She will be villified.
This is a case of a made bed to sleep in.
The child was born into a civil union and they both should have rights to visitation. I am not a big fan of 'gay rights' but this is the kind of thing that turns the law on its head. Lets use some common sense here.
The formerly 'lesbian' woman now changes her mind and steals the kid out of the relationship seeking to deny visitation to the currently 'lesbian' woman? After producing a child, it seems a bit late to change your mind without having to deal with the consequences.
I would rule in favor of the plaintiff in this case. And let it be a lesson to those future gay couples who want to engage in lifestyle experimentation!
Oh, I don't know. Shouldn't the partner in the civil union have to adopt the child to be elligible for visitation rights?
What determines custody in a civil union?
"What determines custody in a civil union?"
See, this is the reason why the gay community is demanding marriage rights. When people ask this kind of question regarding a civil unions it denys something that is assumed within a marriage. The civil union should be assumed to have all the rights and privilages afforded to marriage under federal laws, that will keep the question of marriage outside the boundaries of litigation.
I can imagine that the virginia woman feels embarassed by her past lifestyle. I can imagine that she feels like she has had a change of heart. I can imagine that she wants to make a new start, a clean slate, a fresh new day!!! But sometimes you can't. You get the child involved and now you have increased your bond with your partner geometrically. Once you have a child you dont get a new slate. This is the price of homosexuality in our society, we must now be prepared to pay that price. The civil union spouse cannot just be allowed to skip out and just forget about the partner.
This is a test case, a demonstration, a wedge case which will allow the ACLU to leverage the marriage issue back into the supreme court. The two gay people need to be treated by the courts as if they were married.
Do rapists get visitation rights? At least those are actual "birth parents".
To say that a "civil union is the same as a marriage" is to forever open the door to same sex parent adoptions and foster parents. To deny them this as a character flaw would be to "discriminate". As mentioned on another thread, the Chinese government will not place a child up for adoption with a same sex couple in the US. Would they be forced to end their program of offering children to the US because of this "discrimination"?
This child was not "born to" two women. And they say it's the fundies who don't believe in science.
No the child was born to a single woman and her live in sodomite lover.
The child had been raised (for the short time) by her birth mother and an unrelated person who lived in the same house.
The mother should have all the rights and the unrelated ex-lover should be kept away from the child entirely.
The third law of homosexuality:
Any exposure of children to homosexual behavior is child abuse
When the sodomite ex-lover can prove that her DNA is in the child then she can get visitation
In my opinion you are correct. I believe that homosexual behavior is wrong. However, that issue has already been decided under the law. You cannot fight for ground you've already lost, you need to fight the ground you currently occupy.
back when prayer was still allowed in schools we said we didnt want to offend those who didnt believe so we surrendered.
back when a bible club was still legal in a public school we said that we didnt want to fight that battle and that we were big enough to compromise.
back when soddomy was still illegal in all the states most of us said that we didnt care what they did in their bedrooms.
now they are threatening the institution of marriage and we have to fight here before we proceed to repair the damage done by our previous compromising.
|What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda|
|Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)|
|Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"|
Say what? A 2% minority which just got it's a$$ handed to it in the last election is going to make the rest of us pay the price?
The precedent should be what would happen to any unmarried couple who separate when the woman has a baby biologically unrelated to the man. Too bad. You choose to live against nature's rules, you lose. Get over it.
If society were to win such a battle over it's enemies then it would be a good thing I agree. However I do not share your optimistic appraisal of this societies entropic decline into depravity.
To be honest, the chinese have successfully innoculated itself against this decline in moral values. We have become evil and I dont see anyone standing in the brink.
I hope Im wrong.
Homosexual Agenda Ping. Another very important article.
I agree with tuesday afternoon's comment #13 (as well as some other comments).
If this case is decided in favor of the lesbian ex-shackup, it is very bad. Two women don't "have" a child. One of them has a child, the other one has no relationship to it other than as babysitter.
Let me and ItsOurTimeNow know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.
This case is an attempt to test the "Full Faith and Credit" clause. These two were "married" in VT and now the "gay" agenda pushers want to test the limits. That's why the big guns are in on it.
Yeah, great idea...let's let Full Faith and Credit work here, then they can impose sodomite marriages from Massachusetts next.
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.