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

[believe09]

Maybe we covered this-is there a missing persons report already? A missing persons report is all that is needed to get Isabella onto NCMEC-there is no rule that says the reporting person has to have custody of the child who is missing either. I could report a nephew missing...know what I mean?

I think we are a ways a way from a missing person report however, because the Judge has to rule on the contempt issues etc. Now if Miller is on the run, the last person she will contact is her attorney who has certain rights and responsibilities as an officer of the court....so where will she go with Isabella?

 

[Cubby]

I did read one article indicating Jenkins filed a missing persons report, and then another with the spokesperson in VA saying she had not seen or heard of one, so I think it is speculation at this point.

While this is 'big news' with the lesbian community and religious right paying close attention, imo, this is a good case for discussion here at WS. Not necessarily because of the sexual orientation issue, but rather the issues and obstacles we sometimes see in parental abduction cases. Particularly when they are cases of visitation interference which then leads to a custody transfer, a missing persons report, a child listed with NCMEC and then little effort from LE to find the child.

jmo

 

[gitana1]

TBH, I do not see why the Supreme Court should hear it-VT and VA have to work it out. Miller took the child to VA and established residency. While she had custody. VT has changed the custody in order to bring Miller to heel-and I do not argue that this was warranted, but I dont think that VA position is being adequately stated. Who has the right to change the custody of the child once residency has been established somewhere else???

In the real world, this is why you do not want the courts making these decisions for the two of you....no matter what your orientation is.

Miller appears to be keeping the child away out of spite. She is not heroic-she is putting their child through the ringer for what?

Establishing residency elsewhere does not usually create new jurisdiction over child custody cases. Until there is a motion to change jurisdiction and that is granted, the original state where custody was originally decided gets to hear the case. So, Virginia does not have jurisdiction.

My understanding is that at the time the LE official in Virginia made the
statement about not knowing what they could do, the new Vermont order had been issued but had not yet taken effect. I think, IIRC, that the order switching custody was to go into effect on a certain date and that had not yet happened. Thus, until that time, the bio-mom still had phsycial custody and Virginia could not take action. I think that's what they are saying.

IMO, this is not about homosexuality, or religion, although that topic sure may determine how the case is handled, and whether some will be willing to flout the law to help the bio-mom. Instead, it is about the best interest of a child. And, in the case of a child who has been raised since birth by two parents, it is in her best interest to have contact with both. When one parent suddenly thwarts that contact and perhaps tries to alienate the child in question by stating that the parent the child knows and loves is a "sinner", which I could easily see happening here, then that parent is not acting in the child's best interest and courts take custody away from such parents at times.

What I think this case is about is the same old thing we see in so many custody/divorce cases when one parent (or both) is so angry at the other that they desire to cut the other spouse out of their children's lives, transferring their hatred or anger on to the child. This hurts the child who loved the other parent and now is confused by the feeling that they are not supposed to anymore. Parents need to love their kids more than they hate each other. In this case, the bio-mom may be trying to use a cultural hatred of homosexuality to support her feelings of anger towardsa her ex. And that's a shame.

I know some whose religions tell them homosexuality is wrong will not see that this is just like any other custody case (or should be), but I know that Christianity does not say that a gay person is evil just because he or she is gay.
The child will not be harmed by being in the care of someone who she knows as her parent and who loves her, regardless of who that someone is attracted to. Although, I will say that I think it is in children's best interests for their parents to wait to get into serious relationships once they divorce or split, until their children are grown and that inviting contact between their child and the new flame is confusing and detrimental in most/many cases.
Children of separated/divorced parents already have a compartmentalized life, or are dealing with the loss of one parent and/or their family as they knew it. They should not have to share their parent now with a new flame or stand by as they watch a new family created. The kids should be the parents' main priority. JMO.

 

[gitana1]

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.

Jurisdiction is usually determined by the personal contacts a party has to a state and in cases of divorce where spouses live in different states, it is usually determined by whatever party filed first: If that party has lived in the state they filed in for six months prior to the filing, jurisdiction is proper in that state, regardless of where the other spouse lives. If Miller had filed first in Virginia, that's where the case would be. But, since Virginia does not recognize same-sex marriage, they would be unlikely to hear a disso case (although I believe Texas has ruled it could dissolve same-sex marriage cases regardless of the fact that the state does not recognize such marriages).

There has to be a format in which to hear a custody case. That would be in the context of a divorce (dissolution of marriage) case, a paternity case (or case to establish parental relationship as they are now often called since such custody cases, which do not involve a marriage, sometimes are between two sexes or brought by a party wanting to establish that a certain female is the legal mother of the child, whether that person is biologically related or not), and/or a guardianship case.

In this case, since the two were married, a disso case would be the most logical context for the custody battle. And, even if other states do not recognize same sex marriages, they do recognize child custody and support orders from other states, regardless of context. So, I don't see a problem with Virginia or any other state enforcing a court ruling regarding child custody from another jurisdiction. We even have special forms in family law to make such intrastate enforcement of orders involving kids, easier.

 

[MeoW333]

My friends (a lesbian couple) got IVF from a sperm donor, it was anonymous so i'm guessing that both their names (the women) will be on the birth certificate, as the IVF is anon so the father wouldn't want to go looking for the child created by his seamonkeys. My friends are still pregnant, so.. don't know that much.

I will say though, that in many instances of heterosexual couples, where a child has 2 mothers. A bio-mom and a step mother.
One of my neices went to live with her step mother as opposed to my sister, (my sister being a horrible parent) and thankfully now my niece is thriving and in college. Had she stayed with my sister, her suicide attempts may have eventually worked. So even though my niece was living with her step mother (bio-dad commited suicide) her stepmom was the same as a real mother to her.

There a lot of children out there who consider people other than there biological parents to be their mother or father, as the bioparents (or parent) may not be a healthy productive example in their lives.

In this case, i agree with what Gitana1 said, that it is likely that Miller is spouting hatred about Jenkins being a sinner. IMO, i believe that Miller purposely chose VA as she knew the state's opinion towards homosexuals and also that she has friends relatives who will harbor a criminal there.

The fact that Miller couldn't work this out peacefully to begin with, with Jenkins shows that this case is not about the child's best interests. Jenkins raised the girl since she was born with Miller, and is the same amount of mother to the child as Miller is. Jenkin's actions seem to be in favor of best interests of the child, while Millers are not. The fact alone that Miller would abscond and kidnap purposely with their child when she knew that she was to be returned due to the custody agreement shows Miller not looking out for the child's best interest.

 

[LogicalMinds]

Hi...here are 2 older newstories that shed more light on this

http://current.com/items/89006755_lesbian-child-custody-dispute-sets-national-precedent.htm

http://www.pageoneq.com/news/2008/U..._lesbian_mom_Janet_Jenkins_parental_0606.html

It seems that when the civil union was disolved in NH, the judge gave Lisa custody and Janet visiting rights

Lisa moved to Vir and then legally tried to remove Janet's rights...using VA laws that ban same sex unions...
that failed...and Virginia agreed to honor Janet's right to see their daughter

apparently the fact that Janet has not been as involved is due to Lisa Miller and her new found Christian friends keeping her away...interesting note is that Rev Falwell got involved

 

[believe09]

I appreciate all of the additional insight. I am hoping that the continued media on this case brings to light issues that we have seen time and time again with whether custodial interference, circumventing visitation orders and parental abduction are criminal or civil actions.

It has taken two almost three years for this case to finally rise to possible criminal charges-more than half of Isabella's life. There is no question in my mind that the orientation of the parents is a side note being used to fan the flames of anyone who would assist or fund the case on the Miller side...JMO.

So, what is a better way to get from A to Z without creating an environment that allows one parent to run with the child?

 

[Cubby]

Maybe there should be a three strike rule of some kind.... visitation interference, contempt of court- which imo, would include the refusal of one parent to participate in any court recommendations to coparent.....

I've read info on cases, that spanned have a childs life prior to adulthood. A child should not be dragged in the middle of nonsense like this for that long. Somehow the courts need to minimize the amount of time they allow a parent to coparent when one parent continuously refuses.......

 

[Cubby]

apparently this is a little uglier than I had realized .....

a little more info from this article. While it is from the 'religious side' and I do not agree with all of the statements in the article I am sharing it due to some additional info not seen in previous linked articles.


Allegations from bio mom:

She alleges that Isabella has complained that Jenkins forced her to bathe naked together.

"I do not feel safe leaving my daughter with her, and I believe I have a God-given and constitutional right to raise my child as I see fit," Miller has told Newsweek. "There is a homosexual agenda at work here, and Isabella is a pawn in their game.”

The legal advocacy group Liberty Council, which represents Miller, claims that for the last five years, Jenkins “has neither attempted to phone nor write Isabella. She has never sent Isabella a card of any kind for any occasion.”

Strong disagreement on whether Isabella should be raised Christian or not:

Moreover, the Liberty Council said in a December 2009 statement, Jenkins “has refused to attend Isabella’s Christmas plays, because she does not want to be around a Christian environment. She has also said that it is not in Isabella’s best interest to be raised in a Christian home.”

Bio moms argument.
Miller’s attorney, Liberty Council founder Mathew Staver, has argued that Virginia law holds same-sex unions and any right created by such unions are void and unenforceable in the state.

UGH all the way around!

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/n...lights_legal_consequences_of_same-sex_unions/

ETA: It appears the allegations regarding Jenkins refusal to attend Christmas programs and deny the child the right to be raised as a Christian come from the mothers side NOT Jenkins.

egads... this poor child.

 

[webrocket]

I don't understand why some people here are concentrating on the nature of the relationship between the two adults and not on the fact there has been a child abduction, plain and simple.

This child is missing due to the unilateral actions of the non-custodial parent in flagrant violation of standing court orders. While I am relatively new here at WS, I suspect few if any of the other child abduction cases get sidetracked by details of the adult relationships.

 

[Cubby]

I think people are commenting on the nature of the relationship because it is part of the argument between the two parents. I will be point blank, if you feel it violates TOS, hit that report triangle in the upper right hand corner to notify a mod. What WS members wish to discuss within the bounds of what is being printed in the news can be done so respectfully and without regards to 'taking sides' so to speak and that is exactly how I see this being discussed throughout the thread.

If it were a heterosexual couple and one parent flinging false allegations of sexual abuse, the false allegations would be discussed too- and have in other threads.

I see nothing violating TOS with regards to the subject of sexual orientation being discussed as it is part of the news story.

JMHO

 

[believe09]

I don't understand why some people here are concentrating on the nature of the relationship between the two adults and not on the fact there has been a child abduction, plain and simple.

This child is missing due to the unilateral actions of the non-custodial parent in flagrant violation of standing court orders. While I am relatively new here at WS, I suspect few if any of the other child abduction cases get sidetracked by details of the adult relationships.

Can you give me an example?

I cannot speak for anyone else but perhaps a civil union might give them one leg up on a non married relationship such as common law or a simple cohabitation relationship-and not as much standing as a traditional marriage. Is that why Ms. Jenkins is now in the enviable position of having the support of multiple jurisdictions in her quest to be reunited with her daughter? Because I can think of a dozen cases where the non custodial parent received little attention and relief when they wanted to pursue visitation, much less if the child was taken to another state by what was then the custodial parent. In Coty Cook's case for example it was a non custodial abduction which was NEVER pursued by any division of law enforcement. Ever. Even when everyone knew where the child was.

My angle and interest is why LE feels or felt this was a civil issue-some of that has been explained away by other posters....in other words, my interest is why Jenkins could not get relief relatively quickly when the determination was made that she would have liberal visitation....and Miller was refusing her this right.

This is more than a simple case of parental abduction or interferance with visitation or now custodial interferance in my mind. Ms. Miller herself used orientation and the lack of equal status a civil union has on a federal level as a weapon with which to prevent her former spouse from being allowed to pursue visitation.

Conversely it is every bit as possible that Ms. Jenkins is using the same issue of orientation to her benefit by drawing sufficient attention to this case that she may actually see her child again.

I want to know what the magic is here so that it can be applied across the boards in cases where a parent has been given certain rights to their child and the other parent is refusing them.

 

[Cubby]

Can you give me an example?

I cannot speak for anyone else but perhaps a civil union might give them one leg up on a non married relationship such as common law or a simple cohabitation relationship-and not as much standing as a traditional marriage. Is that why Ms. Jenkins is now in the enviable position of having the support of multiple jurisdictions in her quest to be reunited with her daughter? Because I can think of a dozen cases where the non custodial parent received little attention and relief when they wanted to pursue visitation, much less if the child was taken to another state by what was then the custodial parent. In Coty Cook's case for example it was a non custodial abduction which was NEVER pursued by any division of law enforcement. Ever. Even when everyone knew where the child was.

My angle and interest is why LE feels or felt this was a civil issue-some of that has been explained away by other posters....in other words, my interest is why Jenkins could not get relief relatively quickly when the determination was made that she would have liberal visitation....and Miller was refusing her this right.

This is more than a simple case of parental abduction or interferance with visitation or now custodial interferance in my mind. Ms. Miller herself used orientation and the lack of equal status a civil union has on a federal level as a weapon with which to prevent her former spouse from being allowed to pursue visitation.

Conversely it is every bit as possible that Ms. Jenkins is using the same issue of orientation to her benefit by drawing sufficient attention to this case that she may actually see her child again.

I want to know what the magic is here so that it can be applied across the boards in cases where a parent has been given certain rights to their child and the other parent is refusing them.

My bold. I agree. Clarification in what makes this a civil or criminal issue may help thousands of parents who are denied access to their children.

 

[Wes]

I feel for Ms. Miller. She's the biological mother of the girl. The only claim Ms Jenkins has is that they were "married" in Vermont. Virginia, like most states, don't recognize homosexual marriages. And unlike heterosexual couples, Ms. Jenkins has no biological claim. Ms. Miller is the mother, became a born-again Christian, and left the homosexual lifestyle. I'm sure she obviously doesn't want her daughter brought up around that lifestyle, and seeing how Ms Jenkins really has no claim to the girl, Ms Miller should've been allowed to have sole custody, imo.

 

[Cubby]

An arrest warrant is being sought against a Virginia mother who has disappeared with her daughter rather than comply with a court's order to turn the child over to her former lesbian partner in Vermont.

<snip>

On Monday, Jenkins in a written statement appealed to the public for help finding Isabella.

<snip>


But while the former union of Miller and Jenkins isn't recognized in Virginia, the judiciary in that state has, after consecutive appeals, held that



Virginia must uphold the Vermont court's family custody orders.


more at link

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100105/NEWS04/1050354/0/FEATURES12


Jenkins attorney's name is listed at the above link. I wonder if we should send her a letter inquiring if they plan to have Isabella listed with NCMEC. Is anyone else curious about that? My only concern is I'd hate to see NCMEC inundated and protested by those who do not support or recognize Ms. Jenkins parental rights. What a nightmare that could be for NCMEC.

ETA: One of Jenkins attorneys names are listed at the link. Other media articles have included the name of another atty representing Jenkins.

 

[Cubby]

Saw this posted at a few blogs... still looking for confirmation on the missing persons report. Could not find a listing for Isabella at NCMEC yet...and still looking for confirmation this is the correct Sheriff's office.

Anyone with information regarding Isabella’s and Lisa’s whereabouts should call the Center for Missing and Exploited Children at 1-800-843-5678 or the Bedford County Sheriff’s Office at 540-586-4800.

 

[Cubby]

ACLU link with info regarding the case. Also within article, it states that Miller acknowledged the child was a product of the civil union and sought child support from Jenkins. (ok, ok, I know.... custody/visitation and child support are two different issues.... couldn't help myself. Miller recognized Jenkins as a parent when she sought child support, of course in addition to the courts recognizing as well.)

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/miller-v-jenkins-about-case

ETA: clarification regarding jurisdiction issue as described in above link.

Under federal law, once the courts in one state properly take jurisdiction over a child custody or visitation case, a court in another state cannot assume jurisdiction. The law is meant to prevent parents who are unhappy with a custody ruling from moving to another state to try to get a different result. The court held that Vermont had sole jurisdiction, and that Virginia must give full force and effect to the Vermont Court&#8217;s orders.

 

[Cubby]

The Jenkins family called police after Miller failed to show. A detective interviewed the family and determined that Fairfax County authorities would not be investigating the girl’s whereabouts because of jurisdictional concerns, said Officer Tawny Wright, a police spokeswoman.

Star said she had also contacted authorities in Rutland County, Vt., where Jenkins lives, and Bedford County, Va., where Miller was living the last time Jenkins knew her whereabouts. Wright said it would be up to authorities in those counties to decide whether to investigate.


http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=100597


According to the courts, the jurisdiction concerns seem to have been addressed. Virginia must uphold the Vermont court's family custody orders. So why then is LE not looking for this child?

 

[Cubby]

a little more info regarding Millers argument to the courts:


Vermont stands on the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), which it claims supercedes the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Virginia's Marriage Affirmation Act and Virginia's constitutional marriage amendment in this case. Lisa's attorneys have disputed that "Full Faith and Credit" requires Virginia's enforcement of the Vermont visitation order or any "foreign" orders recognizing the "benefits" of same-sex unions. On March 3, 2009, Liberty Counsel filed a brief in the Virginia Court of Appeals referring to the absence of case law and noting that all of the custody cases cited by Janet Jenkins' attorneys relate to heterosexual couples or adoptive parents. The brief asks the court to rule that Virginia must only recognize Vermont's visitation order, not enforce it.

http://protectisabella.com/factsheet.php

It is my understanding state laws have to at least meet federal laws. IIRC, a child born into 'marriage', and for the sake of argument at this point I am comparing the marriage and civil unions equally, is a product of the marriage. Thus, it is my understanding federal law would apply in the same manner in states which have legal marriage or civil unions for same sex couples. I fail to see how the courts would rule contrary to the state or (federal I am pretty sure) uniform parentage act for same sex marriages or unions regarding uniform parentage acts or state parentage acts.

 

[believe09]

Hmm-so Miller wanted it both ways and now has changed her mind....

The ball is in VA's court-it will be interesting to see if the arrest warrant is issued and where. Again, it is REMARKABLE to see this case go as far as it has-I have high hopes that parents everywhere in this situation will obtain some relief from the hoops this couple has had to jump through in order to get their point of view across.