I have therefore been wavering on the homosexual marriage issue, but this case tilts me against it. The birth mother is also the genetic mother and the father is turkey-baster.
The mother decided to renounce homosexuality and to try to raise her child outside of that milieu. The child has only known her current [non-homosexual] way of life since she was an infant.
The problem is, there was a government-sanctioned "marriage" involved that obligated visitation. Opting the child out of exposure to normalized homosexuality was thus legally denied the mother.
I am increasingly distressed how children [in hetero and homo marriages] are regarded by the Courts as property to whom parents are entitled. What is good for the child seems to be of only passing interest as indulging the parents' whims seems to be paramount.
Homosexual marriage also opens the door to the government sanctioning of just about any other mix-and-match combination. There are polyamorous groupings [those with 3 or more "partners"] out there who would have every reason to justify having their relationships sanctioned by the government also. These would then be protected by the Courts and eligible for taxpayer support as well.
Again, I am not happy about the government having to take a stand on this issue one way or the other, preferring instead to let people associate privately as they see fit. But when it comes to childrens' interests and having the rest of us being forced to accept -- and even subsidize a lifestyle to which we may object -- I must draw the line.
They can hide at my place.
Did she adopt the baby? If she did she is a parent... and the courts cannot adjure her rights.
It also really seems wrong that custody is being pulled from the parent as punishment—in this case, contempt of court. What ever happened to a fine or a weekend in jail?
Many Judges see themselves as agents of social change, just ask any wise latina.
whoa
I wonder if that judge wears body armor. If not he should probably start.
I doubt the court would take the child away from the birth mom if the spouse was a male.
In this case, the biological mother chose to have a child and begin raising the child in a home where the child was taught to regard the partner as a parent. Then the biological mother changed her mind, decided her child's other parent was evil and kicked her out of the child's life. The courts would have reached the same decision if the biological mother had remained a lesbian and the partner became an evengelical Christian. Primary custody would have been awarded to the biological mother, with visitation rights awarded to her ex-partner. And if the still-lesbian biological mother had then refused to allow the girl to visit the now-evangelical Christian ex-partner in defiance of the court order, primary custody would have been switched.
Note that BOTH the Vermont and Virginia supreme courts decided in favor of this change of primary custody switch, even though the Virginia constitution has a provision that bans enforcement of rights arising from same-sex civil unions or marriages. The Virginia decision was based on recognition of the Vermont court's visitation order, and would have been the same for any unmarried/ununioned heterosexual couple in the same situation. This is proper recognition for the laws of other states. If one state's laws explicitly state that grandparents are not entitled to visitation rights by virtue of being grandparents, that state should (and would) still enforce a visitation order from another state whose laws specify that grandparents are entitled to visitation rights.
Homosexual marriage also opens the door to the government sanctioning of just about any other mix-and-match combination. There are polyamorous groupings [those with 3 or more "partners"] out there who would have every reason to justify having their relationships sanctioned by the government also. These would then be protected by the Courts and eligible for taxpayer support as well.
Freedom means not having government dictating that people have different legal rights based on the choices they make in arranging their personal lives. Government shouldn't be recognizing ANY marriages, unions, etc, beyond having courts enforce private contracts that free citizens have voluntarily entered into with each other, just as is done for business-type contracts.
THis is a complex case, one that isn’t suited to the sound-bite treatment it is given in our forums.
Obviously, we know that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful, so the child would be best placed with her mother, and not forced to see the other woman and her lesbian partner.
However, society has not deemed that the homosexual lifestyle is harmful to the child, so no judge is going to deny access to the homosexual partner based on “interest of the child”, any more than they would cut off a man’s visitation rights if the man left his wife because he announced he was homosexual.
And of course, the other woman has no biological attachment to the child, while the mother in Virginia does. But they were in a legal civil partnership when they decided to have the child, and the other woman adopted the child. Suppose it was reversed, would we argue that the virginia mother could be denied access to the child she had adopted, simply because the other woman gave birth?
Well, of course, because we know that biological attachment is critically important (sometimes I get yelled at for saying that, by freepers who had to adopt children, but it’s just a fact of life, that is borne out when adopted children go out of their way to discover who their biological parents are). But again, the law does not give absolute deference to biological imperative, especially when legal adoption has taken place, as in this case.
So really, it comes down to this: The couple’s “divorce” from their civil union included giving the natural mother custody, with full visitation rights to the other woman.
But the natural mother, because she realised that her homosexuality was wrong, chose to disobey the legal order for visitation. And how could she not? She couldn’t get the court to change the visitation rules, since the court would never rule to ignore a legal adoption, or to find that homosexuality was something the child had to be protected from.
But the courts have their hands tied. The other mother has legal visitation rights, which the birth mother who has custody has “illegally” cut off. So the court is switching custody, on the promise of the Vt. woman that she will maintain the same visitation rules as were previously in force.
Which could mean that in the end, the child spends exactly the same amount of time with each mother now as she was supposed to before.
Of course, this is all a travesty, but it was caused by the birth mother when she entered into a homosexual union, and decided to have a child with the other woman.
Under the “biological imperative”, we would ignore the other woman, but then the sperm donor would have equal claim to the child, something that people who use sperm donors would be opposed to.
Virginia has strict rules — we don’t support civil unions, we don’t allow homosexual adoptions. But we do have to abide by the laws of other states when citizens freely enter into contracts. We certainly don’t want other states to abrogate custody orders from our courts.
I feel sorry for the Child.
The two Dykes made their own beds, now thay have to sleep in them.
Children never get to “consent” to being raised in an alternative sexual relationship household.
This is judicial activism at its worst.
Was the non-birth woman paying child support?
The family court system has been a complete joke for forty years (remember the 60’s?). The “interests of the children” has been their last priority. The transfer of wealth has been their first.
In slack-jawed lockstep with the progressive (oxymoron) movement, the family court system has rewarded every fringe element of society at the expense of normalcy and common sense.
Now, in a reach too far, they have perhaps set the precedent for their own undoing. The linchpin of their approach to arbitration was that the mothers rights were superior to any other. In awarding the child to a third party for no justifiable reason (child welfare, substance abuse, neglect, etc) the court has broken its only “sacred” bond.
I hope this breaks the family court or forces them to start over. Nothing is better than the crap sandwich they’ve been serving.
The Perverts Run The Asylum...
BUMP!!!
Another Vermont judge did what? Wait till BOR get’s a hold of this.