Miller gets Virginia victory
A Virginia judge declined to impose sanctions Tuesday on Lisa Miller for failing to send her 7-year-old daughter Isabella on court-mandated visits with Miller’s former lesbian partner, Janet Jenkins. The ACLU, acting on Jenkin’s behalf, had also sought financial reimbursement for attorney fees—a request the judge denied. Meanwhile, a Vermont judge has yet to issue a ruling following last week’s hearing that considered Jenkin’s request for custody of Isabella. Later this year, the Virginia Court of Appeals is expected to hear oral arguments on whether Virginia must enforce Vermont’s orders in the case.
Updates on the situation are available here, and check out WORLD’s past coverage of the story here and here.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top25 Comments to “Miller gets Virginia victory”
Is it time to stop the world so I can get off?
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
No, Roger, you are not allowed that option.
Report comment to moderator
Why did Vermont become so ridiculous in this matter?
Report comment to moderator
Why did the ACLU?
Report comment to moderator
I just can’t get over that the courts are even CONSIDERING giving away a woman’s biological child of 7 years old to someone not even related and who hasn’t reared her. And, who the girl does not want to be with!
Talk about traumatizing a child in the name of some PC nonsense!
Report comment to moderator
And breaking a bunch of laws to do it! Wow. What is this country coming to?
Report comment to moderator
My fear this could be a precedent setting case. A crack in the great big dyke holding back a veritable deluge.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, yes I now concede perhaps Levee should’ve been a better word choice.
Report comment to moderator
I usually refrain from the “gay” threads because, well, just because. I do have a lesbian friend who says that gay people shouldn’t have children for this very reason. I suspect gay men don’t have this issue because they usually adopt. Imagine if our own dear Random Grandfather lost access to Random Granddaughter how devastated he would be. Most recently an acquaintance and her girlfriend decided to have a baby. The girlfriend was artificially inseminated. What happens if they break up. The agreement is that “S” will have the baby and “K” will stay home with it. Not being gay, I really don’t know. I just think adults should be unselfish enough to put the needs of a child first. I am divorced from my daughters father, but I would NEVER deny either of them each other. The more people who love your child the better.
I think each of these women is selfish.
Report comment to moderator
3 and 4 Perhaps because Vermont and the ACLU had an affair when the State was overrun by Mass. and NY libs.
Blessings
Roger
Report comment to moderator
ACLU = All Crazy Lunatics Unite
Oh, and Amen to #5.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, Mr. Y., that’s amazing! I’m gonna use that.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps if you let lesbians marry their legal rights and obligations would be more apparent.
I would imagine the ACLU is involved because they are fighting for equivalency between gay and strait relationships. In the case of a lesbian couple, they may decide to see who carries the baby by a coin toss, or who has the wider hips. Why should the other one be denied rights to the child they decided to have together?
Report comment to moderator
“Perhaps if you let lesbians marry their legal rights and obligations would be more apparent.”
Whose not letting them marry? Nothing prohibits a lesbian from finding the right man and marrying him.
Report comment to moderator
You know, the best thing about this is that the judge denied attorneys fees to the ACLU, those people who sue you and ask you to pay for it.
Report comment to moderator
I once wrote a law review article in which I had to research literally hundreds of civil rights cases, mostly freedom of speech and religion. The ACLU was involved in dozens of them. I couldn’t help but notice that when there was a religious person involved, the ACLU was advocating for the government to coerce the person to act against their conscience. Since then, I’ve never believed their rhetoric about sticking up against the government and in favor of individual rights. In this case, as well, they’re advocating for the government to take the woman’s child away against her wishes.
Report comment to moderator
If this was a man and a woman that lived together and the man was NOT the father, would we be having this discussion?
Report comment to moderator
Kwatson:
“In the case of a lesbian couple, they may decide to see who carries the baby by a coin toss, or who has the wider hips. Why should the other one be denied rights to the child they decided to have together?”
Well, I would think, perhaps, because it’s not the other one’s child? I dunno, just a guess.
“I would imagine the ACLU is involved because they are fighting for equivalency between gay and strait relationships.”
I guess that’s just it, they aren’t equivalent. In one case it’s both parents’ child, in the other case it’s the child of one but not the other.
Report comment to moderator
I just read the update linked in the story, and found out the mom is an Evangelical Christian. I guess that would (at least in part) explain why the ACLU is advocating for the government to force her to give up her child – see my prior post #16.
And Lloyd #17 – no, of course we would not be having this conversation if the former partner were male; he would have absolutely no rights to the child.
Report comment to moderator
#19 Not equal rights, special rights.
Report comment to moderator
#20 – exactly.
#11 Matt Y. – after my law review experience (see post #16) I came to view “ACLU” as standing for Anti-Civil Liberties Union.
Report comment to moderator
Is Ms Jenkins the child’s parent in any sense of the word–even a loose sense of the word? From what we know, she is not.
Report comment to moderator
She is not. It is a case of ideology trumps reality. The best interests of the child get ignored in the process.
Report comment to moderator
“Perhaps if you let lesbians marry their legal rights and obligations would be more apparent.”
Miller and Jenkins were joined in a Vermont civil union. Clearly, that legal arrangement was not enough to prevent this travesty of a custody dispute, now in its sixth year, for little Isabella.
This news blurb was misleading in stating that no sanctions were imposed. As has happened before, Lisa Miller was found in civil contempt with a fine of $100 a day to be imposed for each day she does not comply with future Vermont court orders. None are pending at this time. One is forthcoming, however, when Judge Cohen in Vermont rules again on or after Sept. 4 on a change of custody that Jenkins has requested, yet again.
I don’t know why it is so difficult for journalists to get their facts straight in this case, across the board. There is a Web site that exists to provide factual background: http://www.protectisabella.com. That is in addition to Liberty Counsel’s site (http://www.lc.org) and the Only One Mommy Facebook group, where updates, including prayer requests from Lisa herself, are posted.
Thanks for the continued coverage, World. Please help us (those who strive to get the story out there) to disseminate factual information. My blog also has a number of posts on this case.
Report comment to moderator
Well if they had a civil union, Jenkins should have the same visitation rights as any ex-spouse. The lack of a biological relationship should carry no more weight than if it were an ex-husband who was the child’s step-father. Especially since there was a visitation order that the court found was violated.
I don’t think Jenkins’ request to get custody has any merit, that should stay with Miller. But visitation is entirely reasonable.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!