Lesbian mom gains custody of 7 yr old - first-of-its kind case

[tomm2thumbs]

Source: Proud Parenting

Janet Jenkins, the non-biological mother of 7-year old Isabella, was awarded full custody of the child in a Virginia court.

Jenkins' ex-partner - Lisa Miller - denied visitation rights, and the judge in the case got angry. Miller refused to let Jenkins even visit Isabella — who was conceived while the pair were together — while the custody proceedings continued for months. And that was enough for Judge William Cohen, who called the battle “a first-of-its kind parent custody change,” to eliminate any chance of Miller to have custody of her biological daughter.

While Miller has repeatedly blocked Jenkins' access to Isabella, the judge said Jenkins has agreed to allow Miller access and would allow the child to continue to attend church events with her other parent.



Read more: http://www.proudparenting.com/node/2572

---

Interesting case, where the non-biological lesbian parent receives custody of the child from the actual biological parent. Also interesting is the fact that the parent who was awarded custody is still willing to put the child first and allow visits from the other parent, even after being denied such visits herself.

The full article title: 'Lesbian mom gains custody of 7-year old in first-of-its kind parent custody change'

[marshall]

1. I assume the non-biological parent adopted this child

While this case has some unique features, I'm sure there are cases where an adoptive parent (such as a step parent who adopted his or her partner's child by a former marriage) has won custody over a biological parent. In the eyes of the court both parents are equal. And it's up to the courts to find the best outcome for the child.

[imdjh]

2. Good case, but not really ground breaking if we stop thinking about sex.

There have been cases where a step parent has been awarded custody over the biological parent. Of course, in most cases the judge would actually have to see the biological parent turning tricks in court and smoking crack on the stand before he would give custody to the better parent.

[WriteDown]

8. That's what I don't get....

It doesn't sound like the biological mother is a terrible parent, just didn't follow the judges orders. So she loses all visitation rights? I'd love to see this spread to cases where a father is suing for custody from a mother.

[katkat]

10. WriteDown

The moral of this is, don't piss off a judge by repeatedly flouting court orders. She's lucky she isn't also in jail for contempt of court.

And she didn't lose visitation rights.

[WriteDown]

11. Plenty of women and men will refuse the orders of the court

though everyday. I can think of half a dozen friends who've had they're "weekend" interrupted due to some inane, fabricated reason, but I've never seen a reaction like this. I'm glad she still has visitation rights, but it seems like a partial custody solution is usually the outcome in these situations.

[Dora]

17. Denying visitation is a red flag for emotional abuse.

I suspect that had something to do with the custody decision.

[WriteDown]

20. Good point...

Would love more info.

[katkat]

21. "would love more info"

Here's an idea - read the article linked to :eyes:

[WriteDown]

24. Which makes ZERO reference to emotional abuse.

Thanks anyway. :eyes:

[Dora]

32. It's "isolating" behavior.

http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/fact-sheets/emotional-abuse.html

[Nikki Stone1]

27. Or sexual abuse by the non-custodial parent. Or many other things.

Be careful about interpreting "red flags".

[WriteDown]

28. Any of those would make sense. nt

[Wildewolfe]

25. It has...

I'm the non biological father of a 14 YO daughter. When her mother and I divorced I went after custody on the grounds of "psychological parent" because the mother was unfit at the time and I won. Full custody. Mom got no visitation though we didn't sever her rights which would have been quite a bit harder to do. I am not the first. There was case law we used to back up our filing. This was oh...6 or so years ago in Colorado.

Edit... I meant this to be a reply to post #9 not post #8...

[imdjh]

30. Nobody likes a nasty bitch (gender neutral use of the word)

Some people get divorced, and are remarkably creative and mature people. In general, these are the people who accept that their spouse may no longer be their spouse, but that you get stuck with some people in life. I myself, not particularly known for maturity, have long accepted that "you can't get rid of these people" meaning spouses, old friends, and relatives who might not be your favorite person but who will in all likelihood have access to you throughout your life. So you can be miserable, or you can figure out how to deal.

Of course, the wrench in that monkeyworks is when a judge gives power to a person who doesn't deserve it.

What I want to know is how all these people live in court all the time, and cry poor the whole time. How does a woman on food stamps grab a lawyer and some court time every time she feels like kicking her ex in the slats when he himself is living in someone's basement and mowing yards for spending money?

[Plaid Adder]

3. Here's why this really matters--from the very end of the original source:

"In court Wednesday, <Miller's> attorney, Stephen Crampton, said she did not comply with Vermont court orders because she did not believe Virginia authorities would enforce them."

That's what makes this big. A lot of these same-sex family custody cases arise because the biological parent has, despite being gay him/herself, decided to exploit institutionalized homophobia in order to freeze out her ex. It's a despicable thing to do on a personal level--it hurts the community, it hurts the kid, it hurts in the long run even the person who's doing this--but people get insane when their children are at stake. As long as people assume that the nonbiological parent's rights will not be recognized or enforced by the courts, there's going to be a lot of this bullshit going on. It matters a lot that a judge finally stood up for the nonbiological parent--especially in Virginia. In addition to setting a better precedent, it will act as a deterrent for other biological parents who want to cut out their exes. That in turn will cut down on the amount of bad law made.

The Plaid Adder

[tomm2thumbs]

7. sounds like equal protection, state to state, having an impact then

even though one state does not have the law on its books

from the referred article:

While the fight goes on, one legal observer said he believes Cohen's most recent decision will pave the way for future custody disputes involving same-sex couples.

"It's a very important decision that I think will be influential beyond the borders of the states where these cases have been argued," Carl Tobias, University of Richmond professor of law, said Friday in a phone interview from Virginia. He said Cohen's decisions thus far had staying power because they treated the legal parents of civil unions — and by extension gay marriages — no differently than parents in heterosexual custody cases.

While the Vermont case appears destined for appeal and the court battle in Virginia continues*, Tobias said he didn't think appeals courts in either state would overturn the decision.



(* the article notes that Miller will be continuing the battle in the Virginia Court of Appeals regarding the state's authority to enforce Vermont orders that conflict with Virginia's laws.)

[Flying Dream Blues]

12. Spot on...as usual. Great to see you, PA! nt

[Ishka Kibble]

23. I agree.

Virginia is notoriously anti-gay, and this ruling is just amazing. The biological parent must have behaved very, very badly for this switch of custody to have taken place; also, the child was old enough to be questioned in chambers by the judge, with all the interested counsel present. So there's a lot more to this story that is covered in the news story.

You don't ignore court orders. If you think living in a very liberal state like Vermont will somehow protect you, which is how the biological mother seemed to have behaved, you are getting very, very bad legal advice.

I'm from Virginia, and, frankly, I'm shocked, and pleased, by this decision. Watch how quickly this one gets appealed.

[cali]

31. this wasn't a VA judge. It's a VT judge.

[Ignis]

34. Thanks for spelling that out, PA.

Now hopefully we have some case law to help other non-bio parents do what's best for their kids.

:hi:

[intheflow]

35. This the part that worries me most!

What is to stop Miller from refusing to return the child after a visitation to her home in Virginia--sure that Virginia won't participate in a lesbian custody case extradition and therefore effectively kidnap the child. Couldn't this unfold to be a states' rights issue?

[Warpy]

4. I have a friend who sued for visitation rights

for a non biological child born to her ex partner. It was 20 years ago and the court ruled in her favor. Of course, that was in godless New England, makes a big difference. The biological mom was a butthead in this case, too.

It's good the judge saw through her and realized the non biological mom would be the more reasonable parent in this case.

[Mopar151]

18. It is cases like this (along with hospital visitation)

That pushed crusty Vermonters first, and the rest of the region subsequently, to try and work out equitable means to resolve these matters. And our judges have little tolerance for buttheads....especially those with "innovative" legal theories.

[Odin2005]

5. K&R

[southernyankeebelle]

6. I hate to say this but it should be a no brainer. The child should be put

first no matter if the couple is straight or gay. Whoever is the better parent should have custody. It happens my son is a better parent than the mother. They share custody. The problem will be when school starts who will have her longer. Hopefully my son will be able to get her full time during the school year. I don't know how it will work.

[mmarsh]

9. Im hoping we can see some similar judgements for fathers, so that they get rights to their kids.

Instead of Courts constantly siding with the mothers exept in the most severest of circumstances.

[Flying Dream Blues]

13. I agree...too many women abuse the favoritism shown by the courts. nt

[Jankyn]

14. Plaid Adder hits it on the head, but...

...there are some additional details in this case that make it interesting.

1) the couple was civilly united in Vermont while living in Virginia;

2) they later moved to Vermont, where the child was born to the couple. Under Vermont law, that made BOTH parents her legal parents;

3) when the couple split up, the bio mother took the child to Virginia. She initially allowed visitation and accepted child support;

4) then the biological mother had a religious conversion and became a born-again Christian, renouncing her "former homosexual lifestyle." Not only did she THEN begin to disregard custody arrangements and court orders, but she also enlisted the aid of religious right groups to fight her ex-spouse's (that's the legal term from Vermont!) claim on the child.

What's very important about this ruling is that the court is acknowledging that Jenkin's legal parenthood, even if not biological, is deserving of fair and equitable consideration under the law. Huge thing for the VA courts to do!

[skygazer]

15. I remember reading about this case a while ago

And that's an accurate breakdown of what I recall reading. I'm glad to see that Jenkins was able to prevail and also that she is sensitive enough to her child's needs to let Miller see her. That right there shows good parenting.

[tomm2thumbs]

19. thank you for that background /nt

[myrna minx]

16. K&R n/t

[axollot]

22. That's why the court gave her custody - she has her child's interest 1st, not her

own revenge against the partner, like the bio-mom did. Glad to see equal rights for a gay couple for a change. It used to be slam dunk for the bio mom even in most hetero sexual custody fights to win. So this poor woman had an up hill battle from the start.
Glad the court actually practiced EQUAL RIGHTS in a custody battle.
Cheers
Sandy

[pjt7]

26. This is a important story, but Obama's

decision to increase troops in Afghanistan needs to be at the top.

Obama is owned by the banking industry & now it's hidden partner, the military industrial complex- is pulling some strings.

[superconnected]

29. Why was this story removed from LBN?

[cali]

33. i'm assuming it's because the source is a blog.

[Djinn]

36. Regardless of sexuality

if you attempt to prevent your child seeing someone who loves and cares for them (except in cases of abuse obviously) and has taken a parental role then I think you've demonstrated your lousy parenting, you've put your own selfish needs above those of your child's. Shitty parenting full stop.

[anonymous171]

37. This why gay marriage needs to exists. It helps social harmony. nt