Birth mom must give child to former lesbian partner

I agree. We have "I want and I want it now" mentality all around us.

You'd need a dynamic system of group vote - where people who have clicked and read the arguments can place votes and change their votes until a certain deadline where after the winner gets a special icon. We can all start looking like vets after a bit.
You could have a sub-category of specially long-winded contests that have become classics.

Maybe Current could put them in an online book and sell over Amazon; for their legions of new post-Christmas kindle readers.

Who should relax?

well I assume they are talking about the birth mother's claim that she is a religiously reformed lesbian. There is a large contingent o people who think this doesn't really actually happen and that her claim merely means that she has been brain washed.

A pairing of two people of the same sex is for the gratification of certain sexual pleasures which may or may not preclude monogamy, a financial agreement that may or may not be like a prenuptial agreement, may or may not provide for the emotional, physical, or mental well-being of the two people of this proclivity expects, and usually doesn't focus on spiritual development as the primary goal of the coupling, but to pursue a sexual relationship like they are married with the same tax protections/family law provisions without producing the genetically diverse offspring as evidence of defining this pairing as an actual marriage.

In this particular case, it will be hard for any judge to enforce any set visitation when the jilted, gay, ex-partner hasn't been paying child support to the mother to support the daughter. The court really can't require the jilted, gay, ex-partner to pay child support, as she didn't biologically produce a child with the other woman. This is the gray area that you get into when people try to legislate from the bench; therefore, there is no legal recourse for the child to have visitation unless the jilted, gay, ex-partner coughs up SIX YEARS OF BACK DUE CHILD SUPPORT, for something that there is no legal order to even then be able to force the natural mother to allow her child to be seen by the jilted, gay, ex-partner.

NO CHILD SUPPORT/NO VISITATION

A pairing of two people of the same sex is for the gratification of certain sexual pleasures which may or may not preclude monogamy, a financial agreement that may or may not be like a prenuptial agreement, may or may not provide for the emotional, physical, or mental well-being of the two people of this proclivity expects, and usually doesn't focus on spiritual development as the primary goal of the coupling, but to pursue a sexual relationship like they are married with the same tax protections/family law provisions without producing the genetically diverse offspring as evidence of defining this pairing as an actual marriage.

In this particular case, it will be hard for any judge to enforce any set visitation when the jilted, gay, ex-partner hasn't been paying child support to the mother to support the daughter. The court really can't require the jilted, gay, ex-partner to pay child support, as she didn't biologically produce a child with the other woman. This is the gray area that you get into when people try to legislate from the bench; therefore, there is no legal recourse for the child to have visitation unless the jilted, gay, ex-partner coughs up SIX YEARS OF BACK DUE CHILD SUPPORT, for something that there is no legal order to even then be able to force the natural mother to allow her child to be seen by the jilted, gay, ex-partner.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

Jenkins (the lesbian mom) is a LEGAL GUARDIAN of the child, she has all the rights of a parent. Therefore, she has visitation rights to the child. She was denied those rights, so the judge ordered for the law to be followed.

There's nothing complicated about this. It's quite easy to understand.

Imagine a hetero couple, where the man is sterile. They opt for artificial insemination and the woman gets pregnant. The woman gives birth and the man is made a legal guardian. If they divorce, the man is still legal guardian of the child. The man has all the rights of a biological parent.

This situation is no different. It's like homophobia is blocking your logic or something.

He knows exactly what he is talking about! You are misinformed brainwashed

this is why gay marriage needs to pass

yo' donkey -- there is no such thing.

The law is what it is, you can't just attach the adjective "gay" to marriage, when all a gay couple is doing is making a financial agreement. So if the daughter sees two women all her life, she will think that she's supposed to be with another woman... part of sexuality is biological the other part is learned. I know there seems to be a significant lack of schooling on your end, so even though you're arguing for the feelings of the jilted gay spouse, it is hard to base a legal requirement if she didn't impose one from the get go.

It has nothing to do with what I think about it:

The law is what it is, you can't just attach the adjective "gay" to marriage, when all a gay couple is doing is making a financial agreement. So if the daughter sees two women all her life, she will think that she's supposed to be with another woman... part of sexuality is biological the other part is learned. I know there seems to be a significant lack of schooling on your end, so even though you're arguing for the feelings of the jilted gay spouse, it is hard to base a legal requirement if she didn't impose one from the get go.

ewww you are a homo panderer... there do you feel like I'm actually homophobic now?

The law is what it is, you can't just attach the adjective "gay" to marriage, when all a gay couple is doing is making a financial agreement. So if the daughter sees two women all her life, she will think that she's supposed to be with another woman... part of sexuality is biological the other part is learned. I know there seems to be a significant lack of schooling on your end, so even though you're arguing for the feelings of the jilted gay spouse, it is hard to base a legal requirement if she didn't impose one from the get go.

Good god the_phoenix, you are a dense one. Nice cut and past reply for us all.

Homosexuality is not contagious. Try and find any research or just a case study that indicates the children of gay couples tend to turn out gay. You can't. You're basing your ignorant beliefs on superstition.

Also, as I said before, lesbo mom is a legal guardian. Doesn't matter if they were married or not. Keep saying "legal guardian" to yourself until it sinks in.

Biological science isn't contagious ideas or superstitions... I get tired of retyping to ignorant comments, so forgive me if you felt slighted that I copy and pasted to yours.

Couldn't find any evidence that homos' kids grow up to be homo could you?
Or, you don't need evidence because the Bible told you so?
You're a real critical thinker with a sharp grasp of logic, I can tell.

These are facts, in case you don't know:
-legal guardians have all the rights of a parent
-Homosexuality is not contagious

If you're gonna Bible thump, then Bible thump, don't pretend to know things you don't.
You've got nothing. And now you're frustrated.

Take a science class, then explain to me natural selection, inborn behavior, and learned behavior.

(Actually I went to sleep, you know people do that sometimes instead of raving about nothing on chat boards or studying your comments.)

Do you even know how to argue?
All you're doing is name dropping concepts. When you take any Critical Thinking/Analysis class, you'll be able to apply those concepts to an issue in a rational way.

Let's assume homosexuality is a learned behavior. How would you explain that most homosexuals are raised by straight parents? How would you explain that most children raised by gay parents do not turn out gay?
Those are the biggest problems with that assumption. It's much more likely that homosexuality is mostly genetic or inborn behavior.

Read the posts before telling me what classes that I need to take... you lack success at debate because you only remember your argument and not the opposing one. I already said in the other post that sexuality is partly biological and learned. In no way did I say sexuality was exclusive to heterosexuality, only in that a heterosexual couple produces a genetically diverse offspring, which is unique, deserving of the lawful protection of marriage.

Go back to karate class, but hit the books more in your spare time. You have a short-term memory problem.

marriage is purely a financial agreement?

"it is hard to base a legal requirement if she didn't impose one from the get go."
they had a civil union therefor they both did

Ask yourself the question: is it to you?
Since you're a donkey, I expect you to belabor the issue, so marriage is made up of many components.

Spiritual, financial, emotional, physical, mental.... you have been debating the legality issues of marriage.

Spiritually, a marriage is a commitment for God's plans and purposes. This may or may not mean raising children.

Financially, a marriage is an agreement to support each other in order to create a home for supporting children, not burden the state with the cost of raising children on food stamps and welfare, or by stressing the courts with frivolous lawsuits and child support cases.

Emotionally, a marriage is to meet the needs for a secure and loving family environment, to provide support that the other partner is lacking.

Physically, a marriage is to sustain the physical needs of both partners and provide for their material well-being, while ensuring the protection of each partner.

Mentally, a marriage is to develop, hone, and sharpen the minds of the couple, to make them productive to society and to each other.

Marriage that doesn't contain these components or doesn't strive to develop them will fail, just as surely as any marriage that is not Christ-centered.....

A pairing of two people of the same sex is for the gratification of certain sexual pleasures which may or may not preclude monogamy, a financial agreement that may or may not be like a prenuptial agreement, may or may not provide for the emotional, physical, or mental well-being of the two people of this proclivity expects, and usually doesn't focus on spiritual development as the primary goal of the coupling, but to pursue a sexual relationship like they are married with the same tax protections/family law provisions without producing the genetically diverse offspring as evidence of defining this pairing as an actual marriage.

In this particular case, it will be hard for any judge to enforce any set visitation when the jilted, gay, ex-partner hasn't been paying child support to the mother to support the daughter. The court really can't require the jilted, gay, ex-partner to pay child support, as she didn't biologically produce a child with the other woman. This is the gray area that you get into when people try to legislate from the bench; therefore, there is no legal recourse for the child to have visitation unless the jilted, gay, ex-partner coughs up SIX YEARS OF BACK DUE CHILD SUPPORT, for something that there is no legal order to even then be able to force the natural mother to allow her child to be seen by the jilted, gay, ex-partner.

NO SIX YRS. BACK DUE CHILD SUPPORT/NO AGREEMENT/NO VISITATION!

A pairing of two people of the same sex is for the gratification of certain sexual pleasures which may or may not preclude monogamy, a financial agreement that may or may not be like a prenuptial agreement, may or may not provide for the emotional, physical, or mental well-being of the two people of this proclivity expects, and usually doesn't focus on spiritual development as the primary goal of the coupling, but to pursue a sexual relationship like they are married with the same tax protections/family law provisions without producing the genetically diverse offspring as evidence of defining this pairing as an actual marriage.

In this particular case, it will be hard for any judge to enforce any set visitation when the jilted, gay, ex-partner hasn't been paying child support to the mother to support the daughter. The court really can't require the jilted, gay, ex-partner to pay child support, as she didn't biologically produce a child with the other woman. This is the gray area that you get into when people try to legislate from the bench; therefore, there is no legal recourse for the child to have visitation unless the jilted, gay, ex-partner coughs up SIX YEARS OF BACK DUE CHILD SUPPORT, for something that there is no legal order to even then be able to force the natural mother to allow her child to be seen by the jilted, gay, ex-partner.

From what I've read in your posts, you're saying that gay is learned. The child shouldn't be allowed around the lesbo, because the child might become gay. Yeah?
I just proved that assumption has some major problems.
Now, you can either rescind that assumption or try to prove that yours is a rational assumption.
So far, you've done neither.
That's not even an F, it's an I.

As far as the legal aspect- the lesbo is a legal guardian, she has all the rights of a parent, and everything that comes along with that. The article says nothing about child support, so you're just making stuff up at this point.

If you ask me, and this is just my opinion, but you have no rational argument, only a religious one.

No, I don't have to rescind anything. Re-read the posts, again.

The "other mother" has paid no child support in 6yrs. The court has no ability to levy that responsibility on an non-biological parent, when there is a birth mother, and they didn't adopt.

Even if "other mother" paid 6yrs. back due support, there's no enforceable legal grounds for visitation as a non-biological parent. She's just a guardian, entrusted to look after the well-being of the child, in the event birth mother can't. Birth mother can, so "other mother" is mother in title only, not actual mother, hence guardians DON'T PAY CHILD SUPPORT!

That's the scientific and legal arguments, without the mother's religious rights to deny her daughter to be raised by the "other mother" for religious reasons.

I gave you two arguments and won them, scientifically and on legal renderings, as you aren't going to be won on religious arguments because that's not what you believe.

This isn't about your conversion, this is about the birth mother's rights, and I won the debate on two other arguments with science and law, it wasn't necessary to argue with you about religious stuff when you don't believe it, but you turned it into that, I merely included it with the other comments to other posters to be cohesive.

i guess i should have been more specific:
"[same-sex] marriage is purely a financial agreement?"

"Ask yourself the question: is it to you?"

"all a gay couple is doing is making a financial agreement."

ok so clearly it is. why is it that a same-sex marriage does not include the spiritual, emotional, physical, and mental aspects? why is it that a marriage that is not "christ-centered" will fail? buddhist and jewish marriages don't work?

You name dropped "learned behavior" and you think you've won an argument with science? LOL! That genuinely made me chuckle. You didn't even connect the concept to the issue in a complete sentence. Feel free to repeat it if you think I missed it. I'm talking about Gay not being a learned behavior by the way.

Also, you are wrong about something- biological parental rights do NOT supersede legal guardian rights. The legal guardian has a legal right to see her child, regardless of an issue with child support. The fact that she's a lesbian should not be a factor in the court's decision.

I'm glad that you think not being able to even explain your position on those biological terms is funny, as it simply proves my point that you are a blow hard that doesn't know what you're talking about. Any scientist would've known what I was arguing without even having to expound on them or "name drop" as you keep saying.

Get a bigger dictionary, you need it!

How am I wrong about common legal terms and law interpretation? Have you studied the code of the law? Which code of law exists that says guardianship rights are exclusive to no order of support, which hasn't been paid in 6yrs. and that the guardianship rights trump the rights of the biological parent(s) in deciding what's best for the child, as long as the court sees fit?

WHAT CODE?

There isn't one, because you're not going by the premises of American family law, you're going by what you would do in your own book, which makes you just as bad as judges who legislate from the bench.

It's the whole lesbian's argument:

"I'm being DISCRIMINATED against", so pay some child support that you haven't paid in 6yrs. then, and even then, good luck convincing a child who doesn't know you and a woman who doesn't want to know you anymore that you should be in their life and that you having a visitation schedule is in the best interest of the child.

If you were confident that you are right about gay being learned, you'd be able to clearly explain why. Instead, you just say if I were smart I'd know what you're talking about. Yeah, that's real scientific. You would be laughed off of any debate team for saying something like that. Seriously, when you argue, you have to present your claims clearly. Trying to obscure them just proves you aren't confident with your claim.
Can you explain specifically and clearly how gay is a learned behavior? I don't think you can.

Nowhere in the article or any other article that I can find does it say that the lesbian failed to support the child. Can you link me to where you read that?

No you have to explain why it's not, and why you think I'm incorrect, as that wasn't the only point that I listed. Read the posts.

It never cited that she has because she's never had any visitation in 6yrs., so to me, she's push a statute of limitations.

I already pointed out problems with claiming homosexuality is learned.
Again, if you were confident about your claim, you'd explain it clearly.
Here it is again:
Let's assume homosexuality is a learned behavior. How would you explain that most homosexuals are raised by straight parents? How would you explain that most children raised by gay parents do not turn out gay?

No actually, you used nothing scientific to support your argument just your own assertions. Besides, I gave you three points to debate, not just the learned behavior aspect.

Again, your last two statements are your own assertions, not statistics.

Between 22% and 33% of homosexual households are raising children. That's 33% of 5% of the population. That means, most gays are raised by straights. So, it's not just my assumption.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/children-thrive-equally-with-same-...

Research shows that children raised by homosexual parents aren't any more or less at risk of becoming homosexual. Again, not just my assumption.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07161/793042-51.stm
http://www.bloggernews.net/17669

My point is that gay is definitely not learned behavior.

I'm not sure how inborn behavior and natural selection fit into your point.

Exactly, you've proven my point many times over!

A hetero couple produces GENETICALLY DIVERSE offspring, which doesn't necessarily preclude that genetics determine the children will be hetero also, and further supports what I was saying about marriages protecting this unique genetic creation.

Allow me to give you some Scripture, so you will see how I feel about it: MATT. 19:12.

There are people who are created differently than other people, but their purpose is to be set apart for God only, not to degrade their temple through homosexuality.

"Allow me to give you ..... degrade their temple through homosexuality."

your personal opinion homosexuality has absolutely nothing to do with this

"A hetero couple produces GENETICALLY DIVERSE offspring"

what do gay people produce? clones?

It's what God says about it in Rom. 1:18-28

oh yeah they're making clones in Europe -- google that

it's YOUR PERSONAL OPINION that "god" said any of that

and it still has absolutely nothing to do with this

"A hetero couple produces GENETICALLY DIVERSE offspring"

what do gay people produce? seriously. you telling me about cloning in europe diverts from the answer. just answer the question

there are many gods, but only one true God.

I just happen to share this same spiritual belief that the birth mother has, and so this has no bearing on your comments that are for gay advocacy rights.

thank you!!!!!

you have no reason for the mother getting custody except for your religious views! which have no bearing on the case!

plus my comments aren't for gay advocacy, it's for the rights of the parents and children. both parents have rights to their children and the child has the right to have a relationship with her parents (both of them). it just so happens that one (or both imho) of the parents is gay. and i said that cases like these are a reason why legislation should be passed so situations like this don't make the news

She is a gay guardian. She is not the custodial parent, or they wouldn't be in court 7yrs. later. There is no provision for this isn't defined as a marriage.

See you at freaknik FLY donkey!

gotta actually go work on legislation now, not keep sparring with you on a debate that I already won.

Good point. I did not even notice this fact.

Unless there is information we do not have, this other gal has no place at all for pursuing this - and as such - any real mother should do exactly as this gal has done, take her child so an abusive system cannot hold sway.

I do not know if this mother has mental problems that would make her legally incapable of taking care of her child.

BUT I believe that we need more people with a normal set of BALLS to not put up with tyranny when it's presented.

It's refreshing every time you see it - in this world.

Let me walk you through this:

"When Cohen dissolved the civil union, he awarded custody to Miller but granted liberal visitation rights to Jenkins."

^^The 'other mom' is a legal guardian of the child, she has all the rights of a parent.

"Cohen awarded custody of the girl to Jenkins on Nov. 20 after finding Miller in contempt of court for denying Jenkins access to the girl."

^^The biological mom stopped allowing the girl to visit the 'other mom.' It doesn't matter if it's 6 years or 10 years, she has visitation right until the girl is 18.

MotherForTruth, there is a lot about this article you didn't notice...

The 'other mom' is a legal guardian of the child, she has all the rights of a parent.
The 'other mom' is a legal guardian of the child, she has all the rights of a parent.
The 'other mom' is a legal guardian of the child, she has all the rights of a parent.
The 'other mom' is a legal guardian of the child, she has all the rights of a parent.
The 'other mom' is a legal guardian of the child, she has all the rights of a parent.

^^Why doesn't anyone understand this^^

It violates her constitutional rights concerning religion. This decision needs to be stayed until that is worked out. Otherwise, it violates the Constitution. (repeat if you wish)

Gimme a break. It does not violate her constitutional rights of her religion. That's a huge stretch.

You would have to prove that the mothers right to practice Christianity are being impeded, which they are not.

It means the mother's rights to live and teach her family under the religion she believes would be set aside.
This mother's rights, as she sees them, are being set aside by this court. You are saying it is good because the court said so, it has the power.
I do not believe the legal elements of this have been given a full examination. And that, therefore, this judgment will be thrown out.
Until the case is completely wrung out, the situation needs to stay and should be so argued.

02, there is a problem with what you are saying.

The biological mother does not have the right to dictate how the child is raised while under the care of the child's legal guardian, Jenkins.

>>>>The child has 2 parents. Each parent has a legal right to decide which religion they want to raise their child under.

I have not examined this case. I have only made arguments here. Acekitty above places a date of six years ago for dual guardianship.
It is stretching a dissolved union of some six years to hold an artifact of that dissolution to contrive parenthood, if that is what has happened.
This would be a weak stretch of a legal formula if it were shown that the birth mother was sex pervert.
If there is some genuine and solid reasoning for destroying the planned life-path of the birth mother's family over such a flute, it should clarified.

Otherwise this is likely a miscarriage, utterly and wholly.

The guardianship has been in dispute. So holding to it is holding to a disputed and, at this time, long ended instrument.

Jimi Hendrix took I think $1.00 for his signature to a recording contract that was unfulfilled by all parties, forgotten by all parties but pulled from the back of an old desk only to offer a legal window to cheat him after he made money.

The legal system abused in order to cheat.

"Guardian" or not, this gal is not the mother and continues a life-style, the mother left as immoral. And time has provided proof of the validity of her faith.
The question of morality and children is paramount. Whose morality in this case will trump, completely any guardianship contract from a defunct relationship. especially as six years have stabilized both of these women's lives and most importantly, the child's.

Hi Flyingkick - I finally read the Yahoo article just now where it mentions the Supreme court declined a hearing. I wonder what was the legal framework used? -
Religious belief has to be fundamental for many if not most Americans and also is a highly held example for the foundations of our country. Obviously, this is the basis of my inclination of this.
These people are all very happy with themselves for making a show that they are not prejudiced to gays.

However law must aspire to justice whether a case allows a favorable pr - or not.
If Christianity was in some way fuzzy on the issue, it would not be such a glaring travesty. The courts can not argue her assertion that God dictates the correctness of mother and child and specifies the perversion of homosexuality.

Whether right or wrong, there are some things the government cannot presume upon.

Everybody has passed the buck on this. Once the judge got petulant and placed the custody order - it became this very hot-potato. A thing a court can't win. -Lesbians. Nutty women.

People who believe in God believe there are laws and rules, scripture and testament that are from God and are wholly unrenounceable by capricious findings in any courts.

If this woman remains missing, it will blow over - however, if they find her and drag her around, I hope the appropriate legal help also finds her.

And the article definitely mentions the judge did this after she disobeyed his visitation orders. So it is judicial punishment to the mother and nothing about the child or the facts of the case.

""Guardian" or not, this gal is not the mother"

^^This is where your argument falls apart. And this is where we simply disagree. You might not think being a legal guardian means anything, but it does. In some cases, legal guardians are better mothers and fathers than any biological parent. Fortunately, the law agrees with this.

I had a great reply going for you - and the power went of!!! Arhg-g-g-g!!!

I win!
lol :p

Yeah, I guess I've defended Christians enough. I can start up my anti-theist B-24 bomber and get 'r warmed up.

Yeah like "Coraline"... and "the other mother..." lol

Light has no fellowship with darkness, to allow visitation with the 'other mother' is idolatry, according to the Bible.

of course stoning is ok, according to the bible

In the Old Testament, yes according to the Law, someone could be stoned for being caught engaging in homosexual activity, and if you stood by permitting it, you could be stoned as well. Be thankful that God is merciful, donkey, and sent His Son, so that the Law was fulfilled. We can never be perfect, but the love of Christ compels us to be more like Him, not less.

Well said!

A pairing of two people of the same sex is for the gratification of certain sexual pleasures which may or may not preclude monogamy, a financial agreement that may or may not be like a prenuptial agreement, may or may not provide for the emotional, physical, or mental well-being of the two people of this proclivity expects, and usually doesn't focus on spiritual development as the primary goal of the coupling, but to pursue a sexual relationship like they are married with the same tax protections/family law provisions without producing the genetically diverse offspring as evidence of defining this pairing as an actual marriage.

In this particular case, it will be hard for any judge to enforce any set visitation when the jilted, gay, ex-partner hasn't been paying child support to the mother to support the daughter. The court really can't require the jilted, gay, ex-partner to pay child support, as she didn't biologically produce a child with the other woman. This is the gray area that you get into when people try to legislate from the bench; therefore, there is no legal recourse for the child to have visitation unless the jilted, gay, ex-partner coughs up SIX YEARS OF BACK DUE CHILD SUPPORT, for something that there is no legal order to even then be able to force the natural mother to allow her child to be seen by the jilted, gay, ex-partner.

Correct, there's no legal recourse for the jilted, gay, ex-partner:

A pairing of two people of the same sex is for the gratification of certain sexual pleasures which may or may not preclude monogamy, a financial agreement that may or may not be like a prenuptial agreement, may or may not provide for the emotional, physical, or mental well-being of the two people of this proclivity expects, and usually doesn't focus on spiritual development as the primary goal of the coupling, but to pursue a sexual relationship like they are married with the same tax protections/family law provisions without producing the genetically diverse offspring as evidence of defining this pairing as an actual marriage.

In this particular case, it will be hard for any judge to enforce any set visitation when the jilted, gay, ex-partner hasn't been paying child support to the mother to support the daughter. The court really can't require the jilted, gay, ex-partner to pay child support, as she didn't biologically produce a child with the other woman. This is the gray area that you get into when people try to legislate from the bench; therefore, there is no legal recourse for the child to have visitation unless the jilted, gay, ex-partner coughs up SIX YEARS OF BACK DUE CHILD SUPPORT, for something that there is no legal order to even then be able to force the natural mother to allow her child to be seen by the jilted, gay, ex-partner.

According to your statement, this means that she then owes 6yrs. of back due child support, so there's your answer!

A pairing of two people of the same sex is for the gratification of certain sexual pleasures which may or may not preclude monogamy, a financial agreement that may or may not be like a prenuptial agreement, may or may not provide for the emotional, physical, or mental well-being of the two people of this proclivity expects, and usually doesn't focus on spiritual development as the primary goal of the coupling, but to pursue a sexual relationship like they are married with the same tax protections/family law provisions without producing the genetically diverse offspring as evidence of defining this pairing as an actual marriage.

In this particular case, it will be hard for any judge to enforce any set visitation when the jilted, gay, ex-partner hasn't been paying child support to the mother to support the daughter. The court really can't require the jilted, gay, ex-partner to pay child support, as she didn't biologically produce a child with the other woman. This is the gray area that you get into when people try to legislate from the bench; therefore, there is no legal recourse for the child to have visitation unless the jilted, gay, ex-partner coughs up SIX YEARS OF BACK DUE CHILD SUPPORT, for something that there is no legal order to even then be able to force the natural mother to allow her child to be seen by the jilted, gay, ex-partner.

The Constitution while not making direct prohibition against this, is interpreted from a more traditional standpoint of the best interest of the child, so more than likely, this lady owes 6yrs. of back due child support...

A pairing of two people of the same sex is for the gratification of certain sexual pleasures which may or may not preclude monogamy, a financial agreement that may or may not be like a prenuptial agreement, may or may not provide for the emotional, physical, or mental well-being of the two people of this proclivity expects, and usually doesn't focus on spiritual development as the primary goal of the coupling, but to pursue a sexual relationship like they are married with the same tax protections/family law provisions without producing the genetically diverse offspring as evidence of defining this pairing as an actual marriage.

In this particular case, it will be hard for any judge to enforce any set visitation when the jilted, gay, ex-partner hasn't been paying child support to the mother to support the daughter. The court really can't require the jilted, gay, ex-partner to pay child support, as she didn't biologically produce a child with the other woman. This is the gray area that you get into when people try to legislate from the bench; therefore, there is no legal recourse for the child to have visitation unless the jilted, gay, ex-partner coughs up SIX YEARS OF BACK DUE CHILD SUPPORT, for something that there is no legal order to even then be able to force the natural mother to allow her child to be seen by the jilted, gay, ex-partner.

Yes it does. Light has no fellowship with darkness. Homosexuality is a practice of spiritual darkness, so to permit her daughter to be raised this way conflicts with her relationship to God and her responsibilities that He's entrusted to her in raising that child that He's given her.

what's with the copypasta? what is the point of posting the same post three times? you do realize there is an edit button? no, i'm sure you meant to do it. and now you can continue to do that for what ever excuse i'm sure you'll come up with.

"A pairing of two people of the opposite sex is for the gratification of certain sexual pleasures which may or may not preclude monogamy, a financial agreement that may or may not be like a prenuptial agreement, may or may not provide for the emotional, physical, or mental well-being of the two people of this proclivity expects, and usually doesn't focus on spiritual development as the primary goal of the coupling"

seriously? how can you say any of that with a straight face?

maybe she does owe 6 years of child support. if there were equal laws for gays and straights then maybe this wouldn't be an issue. thanks for helping the case.

I had other people to reply to and felt it applied/applied to your other comments.

Just making the marriage laws applicable to gay couples who can't create their own offspring won't work. You have to address all of these other issues of guardianship and adoption, you can't just appeal marriage when it has defined the scope of family law. So saying that if the laws were equal, when they never would be due to the biological inability to procreate, it would not resolve the issues with this case or others.

There is no equal protection for a "gay" family. There is respect for other human beings being equal to each other, in so much as their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness doesn't impinge on the lives of others. There is no genetically unique offspring produced from the pairing of a gay coupling. Therefore, you can't fit "gay" marriage as a bandaid fix over a gaping hole of something that doesn't exist in that legal context.

To expound even further, since you lack the legal definitions:

A guardian doesn't pay child support to the biological parents, so she has no recourse on the visitation demand. In the event the mother can't care for the child, then the guardian may have custody. The birth mom has been proven to be fit, able to care for her child, and the guardian could still be a part of the daughter's life, just not as a custodial parent entitled to the same rights.

A guardian can give money, send clothing or food, or provide temporary housing, as a measure of showing the child that their well-being is their primary concern. A guardian doesn't even have to have visitation in order to do this, and a guardian would do this anyway, if they felt the child was doing without - regardless of an established visitation schedule. A guardianship is a commitment to that child, not the parents. A guardian can send letters and cards or interact with the child's school, and be aware of what's going on in the child's life without any interaction with the mother or the child.

I really think that the ex-partner really needs to take the high road, and consider the commitment that she has to the child above her selfishness to see the child.

Just making the marriage laws applicable to gay couples who can't create their own offspring won't work. You have to address all of these other issues of guardianship and adoption, you can't just appeal marriage when it has defined the scope of family law. So saying that if the laws were equal, when they never would be due to the biological inability to procreate, it would not resolve the issues with this case or others.

There is no equal protection for a "gay" family. There is respect for other human beings being equal to each other, in so much as their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness doesn't impinge on the lives of others. There is no genetically unique offspring produced from the pairing of a gay coupling. Therefore, you can't fit "gay" marriage as a bandaid fix over a gaping hole of something that doesn't exist in that legal context.

To expound even further, since you lack the legal definitions:

A guardian doesn't pay child support to the biological parents, so she has no recourse on the visitation demand. In the event the mother can't care for the child, then the guardian may have custody. The birth mom has been proven to be fit, able to care for her child, and the guardian could still be a part of the daughter's life, just not as a custodial parent entitled to the same rights.

A guardian can give money, send clothing or food, or provide temporary housing, as a measure of showing the child that their well-being is their primary concern. A guardian doesn't even have to have visitation in order to do this, and a guardian would do this anyway, if they felt the child was doing without - regardless of an established visitation schedule. A guardianship is a commitment to that child, not the parents. A guardian can send letters and cards or interact with the child's school, and be aware of what's going on in the child's life without any interaction with the mother or the child.

I really think that the ex-partner really needs to take the high road, and consider the commitment that she has to the child above her selfishness to see the child.

Wrong again flyingkick:

Just making the marriage laws applicable to gay couples who can't create their own offspring won't work. You have to address all of these other issues of guardianship and adoption, you can't just appeal marriage when it has defined the scope of family law. So saying that if the laws were equal, when they never would be due to the biological inability to procreate, it would not resolve the issues with this case or others.

There is no equal protection for a "gay" family. There is respect for other human beings being equal to each other, in so much as their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness doesn't impinge on the lives of others. There is no genetically unique offspring produced from the pairing of a gay coupling. Therefore, you can't fit "gay" marriage as a bandaid fix over a gaping hole of something that doesn't exist in that legal context.

To expound even further, since you lack the legal definitions:

A guardian doesn't pay child support to the biological parents, so she has no recourse on the visitation demand. In the event the mother can't care for the child, then the guardian may have custody. The birth mom has been proven to be fit, able to care for her child, and the guardian could still be a part of the daughter's life, just not as a custodial parent entitled to the same rights.

A guardian can give money, send clothing or food, or provide temporary housing, as a measure of showing the child that their well-being is their primary concern. A guardian doesn't even have to have visitation in order to do this, and a guardian would do this anyway, if they felt the child was doing without - regardless of an established visitation schedule. A guardianship is a commitment to that child, not the parents. A guardian can send letters and cards or interact with the child's school, and be aware of what's going on in the child's life without any interaction with the mother or the child.

I really think that the ex-partner really needs to take the high road, and consider the commitment that she has to the child above her selfishness to see the child.

Yeah the birth mother mother and father.

Not the female parent and female guardian.

The order is biological father and mother,
then guardian.

The guardian's rights don't supersede the rights of the biological parents.

Since this article indicates just the biological mother, she retains custody as she hasn't been proven unfit by the courts.

If she was proven unfit, the court would consider transferring primary or temporary custody to the guardian, but if the court didn't feel that was in the child's best interest then temporary custody would go to a relative of the birth mother.

"I had other people to reply to and felt it applied/applied to your other comments."

you do realize that everyone can see these comments. you don't need to post the same comment over again because if they really cared enough about your opinion they have the ability to read it where you originally posted it. twice is probably the most you need to post it, unless you were trying to be a dick. but of course you knew all of that. there has to be some other reason why you posted a billion times.

"Just making the marriage laws applicable to gay couples who can't create their own offspring won't work."

it seems to work fine for infertile couples. how is that any different?

"There is no genetically unique offspring produced from the pairing of a gay coupling."

just like some straight couples, so what?

"There is no equal protection for a "gay" family."

maybe there should be

I just feel that other peoples' responses deserve the same response given to you.

The concept of the law is the protection of the genetically diverse offspring, which never results from a gay coupling, it has little to do with the parents: that's where your misunderstanding of marriage laws and guardianship laws keep putting you in the same circle of thinking on the issue being about gay equality rights rather than the best interest of the child/children from any pairing.

Since you think the laws works soooo well for everybody else, why don't you spend your energy on being a gay activist for your cause on what you think is unfair, it seems that you would accomplish more that way than trying to win a debate with me that I've already won, time and time again.

Oh and don't get discouraged, it's just that there are way more people who see the reason for the lawful protection of a genetically diverse, natural and biologically created offspring, so I wish you well on your cause, but I don't see it gaining very much steam in light of that fact.

"I just feel that other peoples' responses deserve the same response given to you"

they all can see the responses

"genetically diverse offspring, which never results from a gay coupling"

please explain

"Since you think the laws works soooo well for everybody else"

i never said that. the laws regarding guardians and parenting suck, but they are way worse when it comes to gay parents who are just as good as their straight counterparts. the whole system needs an overhaul but in the mean time they can still get the few "semi-ok" privileges that everyone else get

No you said that they worked so well for heteros that they should work the same for homos, and I said what's good for the gander then, goes for the goose!

This ex-partner wants to be treated as a man's equal or parental unit of the child, so supporting the child for 6yrs. would give credulity to her argument. Not doing anything to provide for the child's well-being and when the statute is up, come whining to the court about "discrimination". She neglected her duties as guardian, so the mother has done what it is in the child's best interest, as the child doesn't even know who she is really!! She hasn't been around or involved in her life for 6yrs.!!!

"No you said that they worked so well for heteros that they should work the same for homos"

i would love to see that quote

it's not like she all of a sudden wanted custody after six years:

* December 1997 – Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins meet at an AA meeting in Virginia. They move in together a few months later. They make commitments to each other.
* July 1, 2000 – Vermont legalizes civil unions.
* December 19, 2000 – Lisa and Janet travel to Vermont and enter a civil union.
* July 2001 – Lisa Miller was inseminated with sperm from an anonymous donor. The donor was selected to have traits that matched those of Janet Jenkins.
* April 16, 2002 – Isabella Ruth Miller Jenkins was born. Jenkins cut the umbilical cord.
* August 2002 – Lisa, Janet, and Isabella move to Vermont.
* 2003 – the couple tried further fertility treatments. Lisa did not sustain a pregnancy.
* Fall 2003 – Lisa takes Isabella and leaves Janet, moving back to Virginia. Janet agrees to pay child support and to visit Isabella regularly.
* November 23, 2003 – Lisa files in Vermont to dissolve the civil union
* January 2004 – Janet counterclaims in Vermont for custody
* March 2004 – Lisa hires a lesbian lawyer and waived her objection to Janet as a parent
* 2004 – Lisa begins finding religion – specifically Baptist religion – and comes to believe that homosexuality is sin and that she is the sole parent of Isabella and that Janet is unrelated.
* April 23, 2004 – Lisa faxes a letter to her lawyer saying that she did not agree that Janet was a parent to Isabella. The attorney withdrew from the case.
* May 2004 – Lisa’s new lawyer tried to rebut the presumption that Janet was a parent. The judge refused to agree and insisted on a visitation schedule.
* Spring 2004 – Exodus International advises Lisa to hire Liberty Counsel. Lisa makes it increasingly difficult for Janet to see Isabella. Lisa recollection of facts becomes significantly different from that of all other parties.
* July 1, 2004 – Virginia’s anti-gay marriage prohibits the state from recognizing any same sex relationship (including contracts). Lisa’s lawyers sue in Virginia court to declare her the sole parent and to declare the legal actions in Vermont as void, illegal and unenforceable. Virginia’s Judge Prosser stayed unsupervised out-of-state visitation. Lisa refuses to allow Janet to see Isabella.
* October 15, 2004 – Judge Prosser declares Lisa the sole parent and invalidates Janet’s claims entirely. Vermont Judge Cohen ruled that Prosser’s order had no legal standing.
* Winter 2006 – Virginia Court of Appeals (three-judge panel) unanimously sides with Janet Jenkins, reversing Judge Prosser’s decision.
* August 2006 – Vermont Supreme Court unanimously sides with Janet Jenkins.
* December 2008 – US Supreme Court refuses to hear the case.
* August 2009 – Virginia courts assess penalties against Miller for visitation non-compliance.
* November 2009 – Vermont judge reassigns custody.

not only was the (still) lesbian mother paying child support (although i don't know if she still is) but she has been trying to see her child since their separation a little after the girl was born. there is no evidence that she neglected her duties as a guardian

She could've paid her support or gone through the school, she doesn't have to fulfill her guardianship duties through Lisa!

she was paying child support, she wants visitation which is (originally) awarded by the court

"or gone through the school, she doesn't have to fulfill her guardianship duties through Lisa"

can you explain this part?

No it doesn't, and I bet you there's no agreement on a visitation schedule, as a guardian doesn't pay child support.

Yes: if you're concerned about a child's well-being, you can interact with the child's school. If the school thinks there's a problem or if you think there's a problem with the provisions of the birth mother, or her being unfit, then there's DFACS. You can send cards to the school or you can open up a trust in her name to accrue until she's 18. You don't have to provide for a child's welfare by sending money, you can send gift cards, groceries, or gift baskets to the home.

The ex-partner did not present to the court where she's paid child support or provided for the child like a guardian would, so now 7yrs. later after her birth she screams "discrimination".

"I bet you there's no agreement on a visitation schedule, as a guardian doesn't pay child support"

there was an agreement between the two parents for visitation and child support

"so now 7yrs. later after her birth she screams "discrimination"."

you keep saying that as if she all of a sudden started this case recently. as i showed in another post this has been going on since 2003-2004. just saying it over and over does not make it true.

no support, support, support...

watch and see how it all plays out in court.

"Within a year of their separation, Miller filed to dissolve the civil union and obtain legal custody of the child while still allowing Jenkins visitation rights. Jenkins paid child support and saw her daughter according to a schedule the two moms brokered themselves. But they still fought on the phone, and in person, over everything from how Isabella should be raised to questions about who was now dating whom."

seriously you're sticking to your guns with that whole repetition thing

"The couple broke up in 2003, and Miller moved to Virginia, renounced homosexuality and became an evangelical Christian."

I see none of what you're quoting in the article up there in regards to an order of what the ex-partner was paying in child support as a guardian, or that there was any set visitation schedule that Miller violated, other then she moved, and since the ex-partner hasn't been involved in the girl's life but only a short-time after the daughter was born, there has been no visitation since then in the best interest of her child on the basis of her religious beliefs.

"I see none of what you're quoting in the article up there"

there have been tons of articles about this since this started

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172554/page/4

I get the picture skimming through it, it was an ugly separation/break up, but I don't see set dates of required visitation, just twice it was called off and that payments were made initially, but no 7yr. payment history with dates before legal custody was given to Miller.

That's what I mean, the court has this info, otherwise this would've been enforceable a long time ago, the article even says that Miller's had SOLE CUSTODY, legally obtained for 6yrs. now.

If you want to argue your point, become a gay rights activist or a lobbyist for gay rights. I have enough legislation to worry about then to impinge on what's best for this child.

The article even touts this as a victory for gay rights, but she still doesn't get to see Isabella, and Isabella would barely remember her anyway after 6-7yrs. and hardly as "other mother". I'm glad Jenkins thought she got satisfaction out of one court and one judge to side with her, but this is about Jenkins and not Isabella. I've said that from the beginning, and I don't see any lasting agreements or amicable resolution, no matter the court ruling.

The court can garnish Miller's wages to pay on the fines, but then Jenkins still won't get to see her, and if it will be, it will under duress and just ugly.

Jenkins can pretend that Isabella is her daughter but the truth is, it's what Isabella thinks. What is Isabella supposed to think of someone that she doesn't even really know?!

For that short period of time. 6-7 years have passed -- statute.

That's like a kid whose Dad does a short life sentence, it is hard to view that person as "other mother", when you don't get to see them.

Isabella will have enough trouble figuring out where she came from, let alone who her mother is, and who the other mother is. Both of these women set this child up for an identity crisis. Only recently has the natural mother started to make better decisions for herself and her child. Isabella is at that age where the court may ask her who she wants to live with, as the natural mother may not be able to care for her until she turns 18.

That's the purpose of guardianship, and I feel this case is just the other mother being selfish. She could still be involved in her life, through the school, as I said, and fulfill her guardianship duties.

frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

the issue is not gendered, messy, but not gendered, no need to make it that way.