VA VA - Isabella Miller-Jenkins, 7, Bedford, Sept 2009

[jnTexas]

From the following link:

The Jenkins family called police after Miller failed to show, and a detective from the department's child exploitation unit is investigating, said Officer Tawny Wright, a Fairfax County police spokeswoman.
If police believe a crime has been committed, they will obtain a criminal warrant charging Miller with parental abduction, and at that point officers would begin searching aggressively for the child, Wright said. For the time being, she said, the case remains a civil matter


Cohen awarded custody to Jenkins on Nov. 20 after finding Miller in contempt of court for denying Jenkins access to the girl. The judge said the only way to ensure equal access to the child was to switch custody.
But Cohen also noted that it appeared Miller had stopped speaking to her attorneys and "disappeared" with the child.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34661539/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

I still don't know when Miller moved to Virginia.......

BBM....WHAT in the hello. So just because she didn't allow her exspouse to see the child this Judge uproots her and gives her over. I would've taken her an ran too. the child was 7 and their relationship was only 4 years. So was the child born into the relationship or did the relationship happen after the child was 2 or 3? where is the bio dad?
If she were 2 or 3 and the relationship started then. Then in a normal marriage or relationship breakup the bio parent would get custody.
This is a very strange case.:waitasec:

 

[Cubby]

The child is a product of the civil union between the two mothers. They obviously had to choose IVF and the father is an anonymous donor from a sperm bank.

The bitter custody battle has endured since the couple split three years ago.

 

[believe09]

I haven't read all the court documents, but I know they are out there.... just need to find them. From the ABC article:

The supreme courts of Virginia and Vermont ruled in favor of Jenkins, saying the case was the same as a custody dispute between a heterosexual couple.

Now my question is which state had jurisdiction? The initial custody order which granted Jenkins visitation was in Vermont when the civil union was dissolved. If the initial custody order was in Vermont, it would have to be switched to VA by request to the Vermont courts.

We also don't know if the initial move from VT to VA was 'legal' or not, or if, as in many cases, the custodial parent which was then Miller had stipulations in the custody agreement not allowing her to move more than so many miles or out of state without the courts permission. If so, then her moving to VA to 'judge and jurisdiction' shop, imo, would negate establishing residency legally in VA thus, VT would still have jurisdiction over custody matters. As I mentioned, I haven't read the court docs but it sounds like that is most likely the case.

My bold and italics-what did the courts agree on? I think this is where the confusion is...I suspect that the argument Miller was making was that the civil union was not legal and that she had the only rights as the birth/bio mother to the child....something along those lines. Both of the courts then ruled that the custody dispute could move forward.

Now, did Miller receive service of the action that changed the custody? She has to agree to have her attorney served in her place, remember. If they cannot find her and they cannot prove service, then it is not as easy to say that the custody actually is changed....am I making sense?

 

[Cubby]

Good questions believe. I don't know if she was served or not, going back to one of the links I posted, Cohen, the VT judge is quoted as saying Miller has (paraphrased) stopped communicating with her attorney. I'm sure her attorney was notified and served. As I understand it, he can be served and is still part of the case until either she notifies the courts she's 'fired him' so to speak, or he removes himself as her representation. As it stands, I believe he is still representing her.......

Now you've got me thinking of yet another question. (This case is very confusing!) Was the civil union only illegal in Virginia? What would the argument be that the civil union was illegal in Vermont?

I'm still thinking along the lines of jurisdiction being in place for a reason, main reason not to go 'judge' shopping and then establishing residency in an area the judge is likely to rule in one parties favor.

I really need to look for some court docs on this case as I have time........ and when I can will link what I find.

My understanding is the courts in both Virginia and Vermont ruled this case will be treated the same as a custody case between a heterosexual couple.... That is how I read it.

 

[believe09]

Good questions believe. I don't know if she was served or not, going back to one of the links I posted, Cohen, the VT judge is quoted as saying Miller has (paraphrased) stopped communicating with her attorney. I'm sure her attorney was notified and served. As I understand it, he can be served and is still part of the case until either she notifies the courts she's 'fired him' so to speak, or he removes himself as her representation. As it stands, I believe he is still representing her.......

Now you've got me thinking of yet another question. (This case is very confusing!) Was the civil union only illegal in Virginia? What would the argument be that the civil union was illegal in Vermont?

I'm still thinking along the lines of jurisdiction being in place for a reason, main reason not to go 'judge' shopping and then establishing residency in an area the judge is likely to rule in one parties favor.

I really need to look for some court docs on this case as I have time........ and when I can will link what I find.

My understanding is the courts in both Virginia and Vermont ruled this case will be treated the same as a custody case between a heterosexual couple.... That is how I read it.

In MA, you have to agree to be served in your attorney's office. Otherwise you can dodge the service and the plaintiff has to seek other avenues-for example they might have to publish in a number of papers in a block of zipcodes and then a date is set as a drop dead date.....

 

[believe09]

I am trying to peel back the layers on what appears, on the surface, to be LE in VA being obstructive....LE is not going to carve new paths when it comes to jurisdiction. VA might have agreed that the case fits the boundries of a traditional custody issue, but as we all know that does not clear up whether the issues at hand are civil or criminal.

It cant be called custodial interference or parental abduction if the actual custody of the child is still in play. Fairfax is stating clearly that no crime has occurred so the jurisdiction of who decides custody must be at issue, OR the due diligence has not been done...ie proper service of the documents.

 

[believe09]

Here are a couple of things I learned when searching the net:
1.) Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins were joined in a civil union in Vermont in 2000, merged their last names, and two years later moved from Virginia to this small town in the western part of the state to begin a new life.

2.) Neither VA or the Federal courts recognize same sex marriage, but in this case they agreed to give the state of VT preference when it came to the issue of custody in this case.

3.) Miller has one more ball in play-she is challenging VT's ability to enforce their rulings in the state of VA.

http://sannsmediation.com/wordpress/?p=334

Now, I think it is interesting that the judge refused Jenkins previous requests for primary custody of the baby. And while I get that the judge is making a point and trying to enforce the rights of Jenkins, I think the custody switch is on shaky ground...jmo.

 

[believe09]

Here is a little bit more:

Isabella was born in Virginia in 2002, after Ms. Miller was impregnated with sperm from an anonymous donor whom Ms. Jenkins helped select.
When Isabella was 4 months old, the women moved to Vermont, where they lived for about a year before separating. Ms. Miller and Isabella moved back to Virginia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19child.html?fta=y

So, Miller is bio mom and Jenkins helped pick the sperm donor. The child co habitated with the women for 16 months before they separated. The bulk of the time, the child lived in VA, which does not recognize civil unions as being legal. They spent a single year in VT during the child's life. Miller was given sole physical and legal custody, and that was in the state of VT.

There have been a handful of visitations since the separation.

I think that Jenkins was fortunate that the courts deferred to VT laws....I suppose the civil union needed to be dissolved in VT for Ms. Jenkins sake, but in the end it completely bit Miller in the butt...

I am going to be facinated to watch this one play out...

 

[Cubby]

Here is a little bit more:

Isabella was born in Virginia in 2002, after Ms. Miller was impregnated with sperm from an anonymous donor whom Ms. Jenkins helped select.
When Isabella was 4 months old, the women moved to Vermont, where they lived for about a year before separating. Ms. Miller and Isabella moved back to Virginia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19child.html?fta=y

So, Miller is bio mom and Jenkins helped pick the sperm donor. The child co habitated with the women for 16 months before they separated. The bulk of the time, the child lived in VA, which does not recognize civil unions as being legal. They spent a single year in VT during the child's life. Miller was given sole physical and legal custody, and that was in the state of VT.

There have been a handful of visitations since the separation.

I think that Jenkins was fortunate that the courts deferred to VT laws....I suppose the civil union needed to be dissolved in VT for Ms. Jenkins sake, but in the end it completely bit Miller in the butt...

I am going to be facinated to watch this one play out...

believe, You Rock! Thank you soooo much for finding this information, as it is definately clarifying. I too am going to be facinated to watch this play out. No doubt it will be interesting.

I agree with your pp's. The whole jurisdiction thing as you presented above has me thrown for a loop. I can definately see Ms. Miller's right to challenge jurisdiction.

 

[webrocket]

The courts of Virginia correctly ruled that Vermont had sole jurisdiction to determine the custody issue in this case.

Despite the fact that the parties are two women, this is really just other child abduction case, which sadly are all too common. The only difference is that the Virginia woman wants to play martyr and has far too many religious zealots at her disposal to aid and abet her illegal activities.

 

[Cubby]

The courts of Virginia correctly ruled that Vermont had sole jurisdiction to determine the custody issue in this case.

Despite the fact that the parties are two women, this is really just other child abduction case, which sadly are all too common. The only difference is that the Virginia woman wants to play martyr and has far too many religious zealots at her disposal to aid and abet her illegal activities.

Do you know what the determination was which gave Vermont jurisdiction? Sexual orientation aside, I am really curious about the jurisdiction. Putting it this way, say if it were a hetersexual couple, why was Vermont given jurisdiction? TY!

 

[webrocket]

As I understood it, that was their home state before the relationship went into meltdown. VT was the state where the legal relationship between the two women were formed and they had held themselves out as a family. Since the relationship was created in that state, VT had jurisdiction to dissolve the relationship and to decide the other issues as to assets, support, custody etc.

 

[AutomaticAuttie]

Do you know what the determination was which gave Vermont jurisdiction? Sexual orientation aside, I am really curious about the jurisdiction. Putting it this way, say if it were a hetersexual couple, why was Vermont given jurisdiction? TY!

They wouldn't have jurisdiction!

 

[believe09]

As I understood it, that was their home state before the relationship went into meltdown. VT was the state where the legal relationship between the two women were formed and they had held themselves out as a family. Since the relationship was created in that state, VT had jurisdiction to dissolve the relationship and to decide the other issues as to assets, support, custody etc.

Now see this is where I am confused. Lets say I was in a common law marriage in TX and relocated to MA. During the relocation, I separate from my common law husband and we have a child. MA does not recognize common law-but since it is the state of my current residence, I file my motions for custody there.

The above is a real scenario, although not mine. In the above scenario, bio mom was awarded sole custody. Bio dad received visitation, child support responsibility but no alimony was awarded and there was no division of assets allowed for.

This is why I am having a hard time with the issue of jurisdiction. I am wondering if it was misrepresented by the press-I mean the outcome of the rulings. While I can believe that the courts allowed the custody to move forward, I do not believe the jurisdiction issue was made black and white...at least on the surface.

I have to believe that Jenkins filed first for dissolution of the civil union and attached the custody to the issue....I still think this is a quagmire. This child has lived with biomom for the bulk of her life-awarding complete custody to someone who hasn't spent that much time with Isabella is not right for the child-so who is this really about in the end???

I dont know- I am sure Jenkins loves her baby, but I think I am unclear as to what is the best outcome here....

 

[believe09]

The courts of Virginia correctly ruled that Vermont had sole jurisdiction to determine the custody issue in this case.

Despite the fact that the parties are two women, this is really just other child abduction case, which sadly are all too common. The only difference is that the Virginia woman wants to play martyr and has far too many religious zealots at her disposal to aid and abet her illegal activities.

I think the fact that this two women is immaterial-but I do think we are seeing what many non married parents experience when it comes to civil vs criminal issues with custody and parenting.

What constitutes parental abduction if custody has not been completely legally established not just in one place, but in both places where the parents reside??

In my case I have custody of my children, but they visit my ex out of state-you all now have me thinking about whether the other state would recognize myself as being the legal parent vs my ex!!!!

 

[believe09]

Where is the issue of discrimination that is mentioned in the tags?

 

[webrocket]

Relationship disputes between adults are the cause of many child abductions by non-custodial parents. Whether we agree or disagree on the outcome of any particular case, no one has the right to disobey court ordered custody determinations and those who aid and abet them are also violating the law. It matters not whether the parties are gay or straight, black or white, or an interfaith marriage with conflicting religious values.

While I cannot speak for this message board, in my personal opinion a disservice is done to the missing persons community when people feel justified in disregarding valid custody determinations and others explicity or tacitly endorse such behavior.

 

[believe09]

Relationship disputes between adults are the cause of many child abductions by non-custodial parents. Whether we agree or disagree on the outcome of any particular case, no one has the right to disobey court ordered custody determinations and those who aid and abet them are also violating the law. It matters not whether the parties are gay or straight, black or white, or an interfaith marriage with conflicting religious values.

While I cannot speak for this message board, in my personal opinion a disservice is done to the missing persons community when people feel justified in disregarding valid custody determinations and others explicity or tacitly endorse such behavior.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not endorsing parental abduction. I am not certain that this is a case of parental abduction. JMO. I dont care who the adults are or their orientation-they brought a child into the world and they are arguing over her which is nothing new.

However, this case could be a landmark for many parents in this situation, SO I am hoping that what comes out of this are clear cut guidelines on whether custodial issues are civil or are criminal proceedings. Or at least when they should cross over from one to the other....only when that happens will LE be more likely to participate in an outcome that supports the actions of the court. Again JMO.

 

[Cubby]

As I understood it, that was their home state before the relationship went into meltdown. VT was the state where the legal relationship between the two women were formed and they had held themselves out as a family. Since the relationship was created in that state, VT had jurisdiction to dissolve the relationship and to decide the other issues as to assets, support, custody etc.

As believe09 posted earlier, Isabella was born in Virginia and moved to Vermont when she was 4 months old. The couple moved to VT because it was a state which recognized civil unions. Clearly both parents made the choice to have a child within the relationship...... Ok, maybe this is a dumb question, but is Jenkins listed as a parent on the birth certificate? Does she have the same legal parental rights as a parent who adopts a child?

I'm simply trying to understand the legalities behind the decisions the courts have made. Clearly Judge Cohen is trying to give each parent equal access or to allow visitations to occur. Miller is the parent preventing that. Miller is the parent denying access. Miller is the parent, who imo, is trying to alienate the child from her other mom. I'm looking at Millers actions this way - If a child has a parent in prison, sure it is ok to tell the child the parent did something wrong and has to be punished for what they did. It is not ok to say something along the lines to give the child inappropriate details regarding what the parent did to end up in prison. I don't believe for a second it is OK for Miller to telling her daughter her other mommy is a horrible person because of her sexual orientation.

For example, what about the children in heterosexual marriages where one parent leaves a spouse for a same sex partner? A parent who acts similiarly to Miller, who denies access, and attempts to sway the child to HATE the other parent, would eventually risk losing custody as well as parental rights depending on the extent to which the parent is trying to alienate the child from the other parent.

In one sense, this is completely unfair to Jenkins because they were a couple which had a child within a legal civil union. What if this were two women who adopted a child and neither were a bio parent. I don't necessarily agree being the bio parent should give Miller the advantage. What if this were a heterosexual couple where one parent parentally abducted or denied access since the child was an infant? Bottom line, the choice to be so little involved in the childs life was not a choice made by Jenkins, she was denied access.

 

[Cubby]

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) ―

A Vermont woman locked in a child custody battle with a former partner who has since renounced homosexuality asked a judge Monday to hold her ex in contempt and help find her and their 7-year-old daughter.

A lawyer for Janet Jenkins filed an emergency motion for contempt for not surrendering the couple's daughter, Isabella Miller-Jenkins, on Friday.

The motion seeks court sanctions and the assistance of law enforcement in locating Lisa Miller, whose last known address was Forest, Va., but whose whereabouts are now unknown.


<snip>

Judge William Cohen, who granted the couple's civil union dissolution and has presided over the custody battle since, didn't immediately rule on the contempt citation request or set a hearing date, court officials said.

A year ago, in ruling against Miller's bid to deny visitation by Jenkins, he warned Miller she risked losing custody of the girl if she continued to violate orders. On Nov. 20, he made good on the warning, ordering the custody change



http://cbs3.com/national/lesbian.custody.battle.2.1404565.html

Jenkins doesn't need the judges ruling to have the child listed with NCMEC does she? IIRC a missing persons report and a court order for custody is all that is needed correct?