According to Virginia Supreme Court to Weigh in on Lesbian Couple’s Custody Battle (CNSNews.com, April 15, 2008):
“The Virginia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Thursday in a case involving a lesbian couple fighting over who gets full custody of a five-year-old girl. Janet Jenkins, former partner of Lisa Miller, is suing for custody of Miller’s biological daughter even though Jenkins is not an adoptive or biological parent.
“Jenkins and Miller (pictured with their baby) entered into a Vermont civil union in 2000 while living in Virginia. Miller got pregnant through artificial insemination from an anonymous donor and gave birth to her daughter in Virginia. The relationship eventually ended.”
I’ve covered this case on numerous occasions. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl’s life. Miller’s actions read like a checklist of what heterosexual women sometimes do to the fathers of their children, including: move the child far away; deny the noncustodial parent the opportunity to visit or co-parent the child; make an unsupported, dubious and oh-so-convenient accusation of abuse against the noncustodial parent; and pretend that the noncustodial parent is out-of-line or acting against the child’s best interests by wanting to continue the relationship with the child.
In my co-authored column, Ruling in Vermont Same-Sex Child Custody Case: Lesbian Moms, Divorced Dads in Same Boat (Rutland Herald & various others, 12/10/06), I supported lesbian social mom Janet Jenkins in her struggle to remain a part of her daughter’s life. I wrote:
“In a highly-publicized new decision, a Virginia appeals court ruled recently in favor of a lesbian social/non-biological mother in her custody battle against her child’s biological mother. The former couple, Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins, joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000 and had a child together in 2002. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl’s life.
“Opponents of gay marriage, gay activists and the media have focused almost exclusively on the new decision’s impact on same-sex marriage. Lost in this, however, is the fact that the case is a textbook example of one of America’s greatest social problems—the refusal of many divorcing mothers to allow their children to continue to have a relationship with their former spouses.
“During Jenkins’ and Miller’s same sex-union Jenkins did everything she could do to be a good parent to their child. She was involved with the pregnancy from the beginning, was present in the delivery room, worked to support the family, and played an important role in Isabella’s life. Following their breakup she was granted visitation rights but Miller refused to comply. After the new ruling, Miller’s side vowed to further appeal the case to deny Jenkins access to the girl. Miller says she does not want Jenkins to have any visitation rights, and has not allowed her to see their daughter since 2004.
“Increasingly, other lesbian social mothers are suffering similar injustices. For example, in the A.H. v. M.P. case currently before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the trial court ruled against A.H., a lesbian social mother, who had been the primary breadwinner for her partner M.P. and their young son. After separation M.P. sought to minimize A.H.’s role in the boy’s life, arguing that since A.H. was not the child’s primary caregiver, she should not receive joint custody of the boy…
“The problems heterosexual mothers create for their children and their ex-partners have been largely ignored, partly due to misleading stereotypes of abusive and/or ‘deadbeat’ fathers. Today fit, loving, lesbian social mothers like Jenkins and A.H. and their children face similar mistreatment. Ladies, welcome to the club.”
To learn more, see my blog posts Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment, Part I & Part II.
[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]
Glenn Sacks, www.GlennSacks.com
{ 5 comments }
There is a world of difference between the rights of the biological father and the rights of a homosexual partner.
Either way, the kid is frakked without a father in his life and using this case to support father’s rights only seems to add to the perception that children are just as good without a father as they are with.
Be careful what you wish for…
Not when they are treated the same by the birth-mother: like s**t.
The rights of the partner are (or should be) the same as the rights an involved stepfather or an adoptive father would have in an equivalent situation. I expect a child is better off with two loving parental figures involved in the child’s life than with one parent excluding the other, regardless of the genders of the parental figures.
I’m with Maniakes; approving of lesbian couples/children is a separate issue and shouldn’t even be on the table; the question here is what’s in the best interests of the child (that’s #1) and fundamental fairness (that’s #2). Unless you’re going to assert that a two-woman couple is fundamentally more damaging than a single mom? That doesn’t even start to sound reasonable to me.
I dunno about taking the issue off the table;
(1) I believe there is evidence (too lazy to go look for it right now) that divorce is bad for the kiddies. If divorce is generally bad for children then the next question is: what is the ratio of gay couples with kids that hang together for life to those that don’t, and how does that compare to as straights (I realize this cuts both ways).
(2) "the question here is what’s in the best interests of the child (that’s #1) " cannot ignore whether a gay parent or couple is good for the kid, period and still consider best interests of the child.
(3) "Unless you’re going to assert that a two-woman couple is fundamentally more damaging than a single mom? That doesn’t even start to sound reasonable to me."Â
         I’m not sure why the premise is dismissed without some careful thought. I’m not sure how displacing the male authority figure with a female figures complicates a child’s life, but if it does some damage then it might be possible that the impact on the child (while still bad) is better with the absence of the 2nd female.
BTW: This reminds me of how the Bible speaks of homosexuality as a consequence of people putting other things in place of reverence for God (Romans), and divorce being institutionalized because of "hardness of hearts."
Comments on this entry are closed.