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

[sniperacer]

This case is a good example why gay marriage should be legalized in the USA.
The child is the one who is hurting since VA won't go find her and arrest the mother as they'd do if this was a case involving a heterosexual marriage. It's discrimination plain and simple.
Children of gay & lesbians deserve the same protection as children of heterosexual parents receive.
As this case shows, it is not equal at all.

Um, not to take away from this intersesting case, but there are hundreds of thousands of divorced fathers in the same situation that get no "protection" from move-away mothers.

And these fathers don't even get a thread in WebSleuths.

 

[believe09]

Um, not to take away from this intersesting case, but there are hundreds of thousands of divorced fathers in the same situation that get no "protection" from move-away mothers.

And these fathers don't even get a thread in WebSleuths.

You are absolutely addressing my issue-It has taken this person (Jenkins) more than two years to get some relief on this issue from the courts. It has taken God knows how many thousands of dollars on both sides. There is perhaps evidence that the NOW non custodial parent may have chosen to flee with the child and STILL, this is not considered a criminal case. This is considered to be a civil matter until the court gives the presiding jurisdiction sufficient instruction to arrest the parent who is not complying with the order.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME????

 

[sniperacer]

Aside from the obvious reasons, this makes me so angry! I saw a few articles recently that said something along the lines of "mother won't hand daughter over to woman". Like this other "woman" is just some stranger who wants the child. NO! This other woman is her MOTHER!

Prayers that Isabella is found safe, and quickly. I'm sure her bio mom is filling her head with all sorts of nonsense. And she deserves the love of both of her parents, regardless of religious or political beliefs.

This case is much deeper than the posts.

First, one woman, Lisa Miller, is completely biologically linked to the child. The other, Janet Jenkins, is not. This differs from most mother/father custody cases where both are equally biologically linked.

Second, there are NO laws regarding custody in family courts (the judge can do whatever they wish). Most family courts show prejudice towards the mother in heterosexual cases. But because there are no family court laws, the higher courts stay away from these types of cases.

Third, the laws regarding same sex marriage are unclear.

The hard question, is who does the child belong to?

Right now it seems the answer is whomever the last family court judge decides.

Does a biological parent have rights over non-biological persons? The family court precedence is clearly yes. And by the recent Brasil case, internationally the bio parent has precedences as well.

The final question to you all, does a family court (judge) have the right to make a parent share custody of your biological children with any acquaintance of the child? Maybe a teacher? Or me for example?

 

[Cubby]

Sniperacer,

Let's leave the injustice of family court out of this...... you know as well as I there are a bazillion other forums to discuss that topic, as we have discussed them elsewhere.

The custody order grants Jenkins primary custody. Miller is in violation of that court order as well as contempt on the visitation interference. This thread/discussion is about the Miller Jenkins case, not the injustices in family court.

JMVHO

 

[sniperacer]

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.

It's not the jurisdiction, it is the fact that family court judges are free to rule however they wish - across the nation. In this case, one judge even switched the custody ruling "180 degrees". Happens in all states.

Again, the issue is there are no family court laws. No state want to be the first to pass a law for default 50/50 mother/father custody/visitation.

What would YOU do, if I found a family court judge that would grant me visitation / custody of YOUR child? Oh and you'd have to pay me. Don't laugh, there is no law against this and I'm a great father. :crazy:

 

[sniperacer]

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.

BBM. What about invalid custody determinations?

Do you believe biological parents have parenting rights exceeding family court judges?

 

[sniperacer]

Sniperacer,

Let's leave the injustice of family court out of this...... you know as well as I there are a bazillion other forums to discuss that topic, as we have discussed them elsewhere.

The custody order grants Jenkins primary custody. Miller is in violation of that court order as well as contempt on the visitation interference. This thread/discussion is about the Miller Jenkins case, not the injustices in family court.

JMVHO

Sorry, I disagree. They are linked. JMO

 

[sniperacer]

You are absolutely addressing my issue-It has taken this person (Jenkins) more than two years to get some relief on this issue from the courts. It has taken God knows how many thousands of dollars on both sides. There is perhaps evidence that the NOW non custodial parent may have chosen to flee with the child and STILL, this is not considered a criminal case. This is considered to be a civil matter until the court gives the presiding jurisdiction sufficient instruction to arrest the parent who is not complying with the order.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME????

Thanks, at least one thinks so. :blushing:

Criminal cases involve breaking a law. The only "law" here is some family judges's rulings - which has change over time and state courts. I think it is hard for LE to make the bio-mother a criminal? Thus, they keep saying it is a civil matter?

No matter your beliefs or opinions, this is certainly an interesting situation.

IMO, ultimately, someone has to say bio-parents have basic rights - maybe a 28th amendment?

 

[webrocket]

sniperacer - at the risk of repeating something I said from the outset of this thread, a court of competent, and I would add exclusive jurisdiction, entered a child custody order. Nobody - biological parent, grandparents, surrogate parent or domestic partner - has the legal right to disobey a duly entered order of the court.

Despite some sympathies generated by claiming marytr status with the public, those who choose not to present their case to court and/or disobey court orders usually do not have the facts on their side. Their flight is proof positive that they do not have the best interests of the child at heart when they hit the road.

The child is uprooted from schools, is separated from family members, and do not have the opportunities to make healthy and lasting friendships with other children due to the kidnapper's selfishness.

 

[Cubby]

Sorry, I disagree. They are linked. JMO

Hmmm.. then I think you need to reread the WS suggestions and TOS regarding staying on topic. If you wish to discuss the injustices regarding family court and/or the lack of support for fathers of missing children here at WS please start another thread, perhaps in the JR, or voice your complaints to admin here at WS and ask the appropriate place to start such a thread.

I for one would like this thread to stay on topic.

JMVHO

 

[sniperacer]

sniperacer - at the risk of repeating something I said from the outset of this thread, a court of competent, and I would add exclusive jurisdiction, entered a child custody order. Nobody - biological parent, grandparents, surrogate parent or domestic partner - has the legal right to disobey a duly entered order of the court.

Despite some sympathies generated by claiming marytr status with the public, those who choose not to present their case to court and/or disobey court orders usually do not have the facts on their side. Their flight is proof positive that they do not have the best interests of the child at heart when they hit the road.

The child is uprooted from schools, is separated from family members, and do not have the opportunities to make healthy and lasting friendships with other children due to the kidnapper's selfishness.

I agree the court findings should be obeyed.

But at the risk of getting yelled, "duly entered family court orders" are disobeyed all the time. Why is this case more important than, say some divorced father, trying to see his biological child -which is much more prevalent?

I concede that this is more interesting because of the bio-mother / wife / girl-friend / mother dynamic. But not more important.

 

[believe09]

I agree the court findings should be obeyed.

But at the risk of getting yelled, "duly entered family court orders" are disobeyed all the time. Why is this case more important than, say some divorced father, trying to see his biological child -which is much more prevalent?

I concede that this is more interesting because of the bio-mother / wife / girl-friend / mother dynamic. But not more important.

I will add to this that I am waiting to find out if disobeying a duly entered family court order triggers an arrest warrant. Perhaps you have given me a germ of why LE is not all hot and bothered regarding this case in spite of the eyes of the world....

 

[Cubby]

A little more information, including the first I have seen any statement from/ about Isabella's GAL (guardian ad litem).

A Rutland Family Court judge wants to hear all arguments before deciding on a motion that seeks a warrant for the arrest of a Virginia woman who failed to turn over her 7-year-old daughter to her former lesbian partner.
<snip>

By scheduling a hearing on the motion, the judge has indicated he wants to hear more, but just who will speak to the court remains to be seen.

While Jenkins' attorneys say they're ready to argue for a warrant, attorneys from Liberty Counsel, the nonprofit organization based in Orlando, Fla., representing Miller in court, have not filed an answer in court and have not returned phone calls inquiring about the case.

Also silent so far is the lawyer representing Isabella in the Vermont court, Rutland attorney Michelle Kenny. Kenny argued in December to delay the custody transfer on the grounds that the switch could cause unnecessary hardship for Isabella if an appeal pending before a Virginia court succeeded.

Full article at link.



http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100108/NEWS01/1080326/1002/NEWS01



Any idea's on what appeal is pending? :waitasec:

I'll have to agree with the GAL's decision, if a legitimate appeal is pending and there is a possibility Ms. Miller might win that appeal. However, if it is solely vexatious litigation, (I think but am unsure if that is the correct term), then I have to wonder why the courts are allowing the current pending appeal.:waitasec:

Any thoughts why none of Millers representation can be contacted? Apparently they can not reach Miller either, at least that is how I am reading the articles.

:waitasec:
:waitasec:
:waitasec:

 

[believe09]

A little more information, including the first I have seen any statement from/ about Isabella's GAL (guardian ad litem).

A Rutland Family Court judge wants to hear all arguments before deciding on a motion that seeks a warrant for the arrest of a Virginia woman who failed to turn over her 7-year-old daughter to her former lesbian partner.
<snip>

By scheduling a hearing on the motion, the judge has indicated he wants to hear more, but just who will speak to the court remains to be seen.

While Jenkins' attorneys say they're ready to argue for a warrant, attorneys from Liberty Counsel, the nonprofit organization based in Orlando, Fla., representing Miller in court, have not filed an answer in court and have not returned phone calls inquiring about the case.

Also silent so far is the lawyer representing Isabella in the Vermont court, Rutland attorney Michelle Kenny. Kenny argued in December to delay the custody transfer on the grounds that the switch could cause unnecessary hardship for Isabella if an appeal pending before a Virginia court succeeded.

Full article at link.



http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20100108/NEWS01/1080326/1002/NEWS01



Any idea's on what appeal is pending? :waitasec:

I'll have to agree with the GAL's decision, if a legitimate appeal is pending and there is a possibility Ms. Miller might win that appeal. However, if it is solely vexatious litigation, (I think but am unsure if that is the correct term), then I have to wonder why the courts are allowing the current pending appeal.:waitasec:

Any thoughts why none of Millers representation can be contacted? Apparently they can not reach Miller either, at least that is how I am reading the articles.

:waitasec:
:waitasec:
:waitasec:

Check my post 27-it is an appeal of the higher court ruling overturning the lower court ruling in VA that then allowed VT to claim juridiction in VA. There was a lower court ruling, IIRC, earlier on that did not allow VT's rulings to be enforced in VA. Jenkins attorney's appealed and the higher court upheld the appeal. I believe this was kicked eventually to the Supreme Court who decided not to hear it, so back it went to the VA court and is in appeal.

Clear as mud?

 

[believe09]

Regarding Miller's representation, they are officers of the court who have obligations when it comes to enforcing court orders and due process. Therefore, hear no evil, speak no evil...at least that is how I see it.

 

[Cubby]

Check my post 27-it is an appeal of the higher court ruling overturning the lower court ruling in VA that then allowed VT to claim juridiction in VA. There was a lower court ruling, IIRC, earlier on that did not allow VT's rulings to be enforced in VA. Jenkins attorney's appealed and the higher court upheld the appeal. I believe this was kicked eventually to the Supreme Court who decided not to hear it, so back it went to the VA court and is in appeal.

Clear as mud?

About as clear as mud, yes.

Ok, I need to go back and reread. IIRC there were two appeals. The first was not filed in a timely fashion so it was rejected. The second, iirc, was rejected because it did not bring something new to the table or something like that and declined or something like that.

sheesh this is confusing! Will get back to your post 27 in a bit.

Just trying to make sense of the procedural stuff here........

 

[Cubby]

From the link in post #27 (link article dated 03/2009)

Virginia does not recognize same sex relationships. Federal law does not either (in the defense of marriage act), but does uphold the custody decisions of an originating state, to prevent venue shopping by parents.
In this case, courts in both Vermont and Virginia (including their Supreme Court) have upheld the right of the Vermont courts to take precedence. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal, essentially agreeing with the existing court decisions. Now the Virginia resident, Lisa Miller, is appealing the ability of Virginia courts to enforce the order of a court in Vermont.

Ok, so if I understand this correctly, Miller would then be challenging which takes precedence. Upholding the custody decisions of an originating state or/and if the uniform parentage act includes children of a civil union or same sex marriage if neither is federally recognized... and that has not already been ruled upon? I think the courts already ruled twice that Virginia must enforce the custody orders of other states..... but no where have I seen it determined that the uniform parentage act which is recognized for marriage is also recognized for civil unions or same sex marriages. I can't think of anything else that has not already been ruled upon.

:waitasec:

:crazy:

 

[Button]

I just thought I might add a link. This is from the Washington Post. It's extremely long, but it gives in detail every aspect of the court case.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/30/AR2007013001316.html

It's my understanding Miller didn't run off to VA to start this big mess. She has family there, and she went there when they separated. Jenkins actually helped her move everything there, and paid child support and still visited Isabella. Problems didn't start until Miller became an "ex-gay" and filed for divorce against Jenkins, she checked on the form that she wanted full custody of Isabella.

 

[Button]

http://www.facebook.com/#/group.php?gid=251765214097&ref=nf

Here's a Facebook group to get the word out.

 

[Cubby]

Isabellas missing person info at NCMEC

http://www.missingkids.com/missingk...NCMC&seqNum=1&caseLang=en_US&searchLang=en_US