Total Posts:164|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Lesbian Custody Fiasco

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 4:47:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This case is a miscarriage of justice to a degree that I haven't seen since Roe v. Wade. This wretched woman was given custody of a child that isn't even hers, over the child's biological mother who wasn't even alleged to be an unfit parent. It wasn't bad enough that the child is deprived of her father, but now this brain dead activist judge decided that it would be in the child's best interest to take her away from her biological mother too, and give custody to a former lesbian lover who was playing house with the child's mother. Now, since she calls herself the mother as well, she and apparently the state, think that she has a right to this child without the mother's permission. Out here in the normal world it doesn't work that way. I have absolutely no right to an ex-girlfriend's children except those which she grants me.

This is one very strong reason why homosexuality has no place in marriage, family, or parentage. It just doesn't fit into that arena without creating absurdities such as this situation, which we as a society are just forced to accept and allow to be taught as normal to our children, who don't know any better.

The mother has every right to keep her child away from that wretched waste of flesh. Luckily, she took the child and ran. I bet that there are enough people willing to help her that she will never be found unless she wants to be. It's incredibly sad that a parent had to take such drastic measures, to leave the country, just to keep her child.

I bet the child's real mother would be the first to agree that there is indeed good reason to discriminate against certain groups.

This is one of the absurdities that we'll have to get use to, if homosexuals are allowed to contract. Rather than biology deciding parentage, the state will be forced to make that decision since it is their unnatural creation. This will inevitably lead to real parents losing their children to people they played house with, but most importantly, it will mean that the child will lose the right to be raised by its biological parents.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 5:04:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How would this not be able to happen in a heterosexual marriage?

A man and a woman have a child. The two get divorced. The man gets remarried and gets sole custody of the child with his new wife (for reasons unknown). The other woman tries to get custody.

Seriously, you're stretching your hate for gays to a whole different level, a level in which they don't even participate in.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 5:05:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Then again, all you progress hating freaks will be dead by the next generation, so the future should be a lot better.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 5:48:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 5:04:26 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
How would this not be able to happen in a heterosexual marriage?

A man and a woman have a child. The two get divorced. The man gets remarried and gets sole custody of the child with his new wife (for reasons unknown). The other woman tries to get custody.

Do you not understand that the wretched creature that sued for custody is not even related to the child, not even by legally adopting her?? She's nothing, just some past mistake that the mother made. The man in your scenario is the child's biological father, I would assume since he would have no right to the child otherwise. But his new wife would have no claims to the child unless the real mother gave up parental rights.

Seriously, you're stretching your hate for gays to a whole different level, a level in which they don't even participate in.

It isn't "hate", it's simple common sense and you're simply pulling out this emotional ploy that amounts to a red herring. Yes, I'm very disgusted that a group of people would fight so hard for this type of outcome, and try to pass that off as a normal way of thinking, or normal morality, that should be taught to our kids. I think a lot of people who support homosexual contracts don't really know some of the absurdities that are in store. Homosexuals surely aren't going to mention these things, and they call it homophobia and hate speech when anyone tries to tell the truth. So you can divert the discussion to my disgust, rather than being disgusted by a parent having to leave their country in order to keep their child from being given to someone who isn't even related. Any thinking person will see right through that tactic though, and see the kind of warped mind that it takes to support this.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 5:59:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 5:05:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Then again, all you progress hating freaks will be dead by the next generation, so the future should be a lot better.

I seriously can't wait for that old, retarded generation of homophobes to be dead and gone, replaced with people who actually have hearts and use their brains.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 6:01:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 5:59:21 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/9/2013 5:05:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Then again, all you progress hating freaks will be dead by the next generation, so the future should be a lot better.

I seriously can't wait for that old, retarded generation of homophobes to be dead and gone, replaced with people who actually have hearts and use their brains.

There will always be hate, prejudice, anger and fear. If not the Jews or the Blacks or the Gays it will be a new group for the next generation.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 6:09:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 6:01:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 7/9/2013 5:59:21 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/9/2013 5:05:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Then again, all you progress hating freaks will be dead by the next generation, so the future should be a lot better.

I seriously can't wait for that old, retarded generation of homophobes to be dead and gone, replaced with people who actually have hearts and use their brains.

There will always be hate, prejudice, anger and fear. If not the Jews or the Blacks or the Gays it will be a new group for the next generation.

Unfortunately, I agree there will always be prejudice in the world, but I don't agree that any particular prejudice will necessarily be as prevalent as racism was in the early 1900s or homophobia was whenever that was considered cool.

It's like religion: I'd agree religious beliefs, even theistic ones, will always exist to some degree, but not to anywhere near the degree it's officially been in the past.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 6:11:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 5:59:21 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/9/2013 5:05:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Then again, all you progress hating freaks will be dead by the next generation, so the future should be a lot better.

I seriously can't wait for that old, retarded generation of homophobes to be dead and gone, replaced with people who actually have hearts and use their brains.

And you claim that my comment about maybe breaking legs was bad??...Talk about a huge hypocrite.

Not even a mention about the situation in the OP, just automatic insults for the person that posted it. So typical.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 6:14:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 6:11:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 5:59:21 PM, DakotaKrafick wrote:
At 7/9/2013 5:05:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Then again, all you progress hating freaks will be dead by the next generation, so the future should be a lot better.

I seriously can't wait for that old, retarded generation of homophobes to be dead and gone, replaced with people who actually have hearts and use their brains.

And you claim that my comment about maybe breaking legs was bad??...Talk about a huge hypocrite.

I never threatened to harm anyone, not even hypothetically. I simply stated the world will be better off without people like you. And I stand by that.

Not even a mention about the situation in the OP, just automatic insults for the person that posted it. So typical.

When that person is you, it's to be expected.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 6:29:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You have your facts all wrong.

Miller, the woman given custody of the child when the two women divorced, was the child's biological mother. Jenkins, the woman trying to gain custody of the child, was not the child's biological mother. The actual issue is that after Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia (which does not recognise civil unions) she did some judicial stuff to become the child's sole parent. Jenkins appealed this judicial stuff and got permission to have visiting rights which Miller didn't comply with. Consequently the courts granted Jenkins sole custody of the child, however Miller and the child have disappeared.

Your entire post is based off a blatant lack of knowledge of anything to do with the case.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 6:35:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
These laws really need to be sorted out. When they split, it's interesting that they granted custody to Miller because she's the biological mother. That seems absolutely right to me. Just as, when heterosexual parents split, the mother usually gets custody. If two women become mothers to a baby, does the biological mother have greater rights under law? To what extent? What about a heterosexual couple where there was the father's sperm, a donated egg, but the mother carried the baby to term and then was its primary caregiver? It seems a bit harsh to put biology first in that case.

Anyway. These situations are tragic enough without all this legal uncertainty.

But no, to address the OP. Jenkins was the baby's mother, if not her biological mother. Of course she should have custody rights - that's the law.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 7:00:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 6:35:06 PM, rross wrote:
These laws really need to be sorted out. When they split, it's interesting that they granted custody to Miller because she's the biological mother. That seems absolutely right to me. Just as, when heterosexual parents split, the mother usually gets custody. If two women become mothers to a baby, does the biological mother have greater rights under law? To what extent? What about a heterosexual couple where there was the father's sperm, a donated egg, but the mother carried the baby to term and then was its primary caregiver? It seems a bit harsh to put biology first in that case.

Anyway. These situations are tragic enough without all this legal uncertainty.

But no, to address the OP. Jenkins was the baby's mother, if not her biological mother. Of course she should have custody rights - that's the law.

This issue is pretty much entirely sorted out by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act which predates any civil unions in the US by 20 years. The biological mother attempted to circumvent the decision of the Vermont state court by moving to Virginia and attempting to establish a new court ruling, violating the PKPA. The decision of the Vermont court was upheld (due to the PKPA), giving the non-biological mother visitation rights which the biological mother did not comply with. The biological mother repeatedly and consistently violated the established visitation rights which are legally binding - consequently she lost custody of the child. This case is pretty cut-and-dry and has nothing to do with the sexuality of the mothers.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 7:12:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 6:29:44 PM, Enji wrote:
You have your facts all wrong.

Miller, the woman given custody of the child when the two women divorced, was the child's biological mother.

Right

Jenkins, the woman trying to gain custody of the child, was not the child's biological mother.

Right

The actual issue is that after Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia (which does not recognise civil unions) she did some judicial stuff to become the child's sole parent.

Right, problem #1. By any standard of decency, she is the only parent involved in this battle. This other wretch has nothing to do with the child being here. Therefore, Miller shouldn't have needed to do anything judicially, to become the sole parent, she was already the sole parent, excluding the father.

Jenkins appealed this judicial stuff and got permission to have visiting rights which Miller didn't comply with. Consequently the courts granted Jenkins sole custody of the child,

Right. On what grounds does she have a right to visitation if Mom says no?? Right, she should have absolutely 0 rights, she is nothing to the child except a part time babysitter. Miller is the mother, and the only parent in the picture. That should be end of story.

however Miller and the child have disappeared.

I don't blame her a bit.

Your entire post is based off a blatant lack of knowledge of anything to do with the case.

Other than my opinion differing from yours, what did I get wrong?? It's all right there in the video.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 7:19:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:00:53 PM, Enji wrote:
At 7/9/2013 6:35:06 PM, rross wrote:
These laws really need to be sorted out. When they split, it's interesting that they granted custody to Miller because she's the biological mother. That seems absolutely right to me. Just as, when heterosexual parents split, the mother usually gets custody. If two women become mothers to a baby, does the biological mother have greater rights under law? To what extent? What about a heterosexual couple where there was the father's sperm, a donated egg, but the mother carried the baby to term and then was its primary caregiver? It seems a bit harsh to put biology first in that case.

Anyway. These situations are tragic enough without all this legal uncertainty.

But no, to address the OP. Jenkins was the baby's mother, if not her biological mother. Of course she should have custody rights - that's the law.

This issue is pretty much entirely sorted out by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act which predates any civil unions in the US by 20 years. The biological mother attempted to circumvent the decision of the Vermont state court by moving to Virginia and attempting to establish a new court ruling, violating the PKPA. The decision of the Vermont court was upheld (due to the PKPA), giving the non-biological mother visitation rights which the biological mother did not comply with. The biological mother repeatedly and consistently violated the established visitation rights which are legally binding - consequently she lost custody of the child. This case is pretty cut-and-dry and has nothing to do with the sexuality of the mothers.

Yes about the custody violation, but no about why the biological mother was given custody in the first place. It only came up because the couple split, but it implies that one of the mothers has stronger rights than the other. I don't know anything about the law, but it's interesting, that's all.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 7:22:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:12:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 6:29:44 PM, Enji wrote:
You have your facts all wrong.

Miller, the woman given custody of the child when the two women divorced, was the child's biological mother.

Right

Jenkins, the woman trying to gain custody of the child, was not the child's biological mother.

Right

The actual issue is that after Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia (which does not recognise civil unions) she did some judicial stuff to become the child's sole parent.

Right, problem #1. By any standard of decency, she is the only parent involved in this battle. This other wretch has nothing to do with the child being here. Therefore, Miller shouldn't have needed to do anything judicially, to become the sole parent, she was already the sole parent, excluding the father.

Jenkins appealed this judicial stuff and got permission to have visiting rights which Miller didn't comply with. Consequently the courts granted Jenkins sole custody of the child,

Right. On what grounds does she have a right to visitation if Mom says no?? Right, she should have absolutely 0 rights, she is nothing to the child except a part time babysitter. Miller is the mother, and the only parent in the picture. That should be end of story.

Part time babysitter? In the child's eyes, both mothers are just as much her mom.

however Miller and the child have disappeared.

I don't blame her a bit.

Your entire post is based off a blatant lack of knowledge of anything to do with the case.

Other than my opinion differing from yours, what did I get wrong?? It's all right there in the video.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 7:22:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:12:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 6:29:44 PM, Enji wrote:
You have your facts all wrong.

Miller, the woman given custody of the child when the two women divorced, was the child's biological mother.

Right

Jenkins, the woman trying to gain custody of the child, was not the child's biological mother.

Right

The actual issue is that after Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia (which does not recognise civil unions) she did some judicial stuff to become the child's sole parent.

Right, problem #1. By any standard of decency, she is the only parent involved in this battle. This other wretch has nothing to do with the child being here. Therefore, Miller shouldn't have needed to do anything judicially, to become the sole parent, she was already the sole parent, excluding the father.

Jenkins appealed this judicial stuff and got permission to have visiting rights which Miller didn't comply with. Consequently the courts granted Jenkins sole custody of the child,

Right. On what grounds does she have a right to visitation if Mom says no?? Right, she should have absolutely 0 rights, she is nothing to the child except a part time babysitter. Miller is the mother, and the only parent in the picture. That should be end of story.

however Miller and the child have disappeared.

I don't blame her a bit.

Your entire post is based off a blatant lack of knowledge of anything to do with the case.

Other than my opinion differing from yours, what did I get wrong?? It's all right there in the video.

Reading your OP, I thought you thought Jenkins was the biological mother - sorry.

However this case wouldn't have been decided any differently if Jenkins was a man.

Jenkins and Miller get married, can't have kids (Jenkins is sterile), do in artificial insemination, and have a baby. Then they get divorced, as per normal custody ruling Miller gets primary custody of the child and Jenkins gets visitation rights. Miller moves to Virginia to get a more favourable custody ruling, the courts declare her the sole parent of the child, against the ruling of the Vermont court. This violates the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, consequently the Vermont ruling is upheld. The mother still fails to recognise visitation rights (which are legally binding), consequently she loses custody of the child and the father is given full custody.

The fact that Jenkins is a woman doesn't change anything or affect the decision of the courts in any way.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 7:24:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:00:53 PM, Enji wrote:
At 7/9/2013 6:35:06 PM, rross wrote:
These laws really need to be sorted out. When they split, it's interesting that they granted custody to Miller because she's the biological mother. That seems absolutely right to me. Just as, when heterosexual parents split, the mother usually gets custody. If two women become mothers to a baby, does the biological mother have greater rights under law? To what extent? What about a heterosexual couple where there was the father's sperm, a donated egg, but the mother carried the baby to term and then was its primary caregiver? It seems a bit harsh to put biology first in that case.

Anyway. These situations are tragic enough without all this legal uncertainty.

But no, to address the OP. Jenkins was the baby's mother, if not her biological mother. Of course she should have custody rights - that's the law.

This issue is pretty much entirely sorted out by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act which predates any civil unions in the US by 20 years.

Right, so the act wasn't designed to deal with same sex issues. Problem #1 is that Miller is the only "parent" in the picture. A child does not have two biological moms, and unless you can show her to be unfit, that biological mom should be the one with custody of the child, not someone who isn't even related.

The biological mother attempted to circumvent the decision of the Vermont state court by moving to Virginia and attempting to establish a new court ruling, violating the PKPA. The decision of the Vermont court was upheld (due to the PKPA), giving the non-biological mother visitation rights which the biological mother did not comply with. The biological mother repeatedly and consistently violated the established visitation rights which are legally binding - consequently she lost custody of the child. This case is pretty cut-and-dry and has nothing to do with the sexuality of the mothers.

Right there is your problem. There are no motherS. There is only the mother and her former lover, who is not related in any way to the child, and should have no rights to her except those which the mother allows.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 7:25:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:19:11 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:00:53 PM, Enji wrote:

This issue is pretty much entirely sorted out by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act which predates any civil unions in the US by 20 years. The biological mother attempted to circumvent the decision of the Vermont state court by moving to Virginia and attempting to establish a new court ruling, violating the PKPA. The decision of the Vermont court was upheld (due to the PKPA), giving the non-biological mother visitation rights which the biological mother did not comply with. The biological mother repeatedly and consistently violated the established visitation rights which are legally binding - consequently she lost custody of the child. This case is pretty cut-and-dry and has nothing to do with the sexuality of the mothers.

Yes about the custody violation, but no about why the biological mother was given custody in the first place. It only came up because the couple split, but it implies that one of the mothers has stronger rights than the other. I don't know anything about the law, but it's interesting, that's all.

I suppose that aspect of the case is less clearly defined (the courts gave Miller primary custody because she was the biological parent, but I don't believe that's clearly outlined anywhere), however that doesn't have much to do with medic's complaint.
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 7:28:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:25:47 PM, drafterman wrote:
Go break her legs. That'll fix it.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 7:29:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:24:29 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:00:53 PM, Enji wrote:

This issue is pretty much entirely sorted out by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act which predates any civil unions in the US by 20 years.

Right, so the act wasn't designed to deal with same sex issues. Problem #1 is that Miller is the only "parent" in the picture. A child does not have two biological moms, and unless you can show her to be unfit, that biological mom should be the one with custody of the child, not someone who isn't even related.

The biological mother attempted to circumvent the decision of the Vermont state court by moving to Virginia and attempting to establish a new court ruling, violating the PKPA. The decision of the Vermont court was upheld (due to the PKPA), giving the non-biological mother visitation rights which the biological mother did not comply with. The biological mother repeatedly and consistently violated the established visitation rights which are legally binding - consequently she lost custody of the child. This case is pretty cut-and-dry and has nothing to do with the sexuality of the mothers.

Right there is your problem. There are no motherS. There is only the mother and her former lover, who is not related in any way to the child, and should have no rights to her except those which the mother allows.

Since the two women were legally together (civil union), both were legal parents to the child. In splitting up, custody was decided as it would be in any other case. This is no different than if Jenkins had been a sterile man and the couple had gone through artificial insemination to have a child.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 7:38:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:24:29 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:00:53 PM, Enji wrote:
At 7/9/2013 6:35:06 PM, rross wrote:
These laws really need to be sorted out. When they split, it's interesting that they granted custody to Miller because she's the biological mother. That seems absolutely right to me. Just as, when heterosexual parents split, the mother usually gets custody. If two women become mothers to a baby, does the biological mother have greater rights under law? To what extent? What about a heterosexual couple where there was the father's sperm, a donated egg, but the mother carried the baby to term and then was its primary caregiver? It seems a bit harsh to put biology first in that case.

Anyway. These situations are tragic enough without all this legal uncertainty.

But no, to address the OP. Jenkins was the baby's mother, if not her biological mother. Of course she should have custody rights - that's the law.

This issue is pretty much entirely sorted out by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act which predates any civil unions in the US by 20 years.

Right, so the act wasn't designed to deal with same sex issues. Problem #1 is that Miller is the only "parent" in the picture. A child does not have two biological moms, and unless you can show her to be unfit, that biological mom should be the one with custody of the child, not someone who isn't even related.

Also, you might want to brush up on laws beyond their titles; the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act applies to any contestants in a custody dispute, not limited to the parents. If a non-parent was granted custody by the courts, then the PKPA still applies.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 7:53:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:22:50 PM, Enji wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:12:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 6:29:44 PM, Enji wrote:
You have your facts all wrong.

Miller, the woman given custody of the child when the two women divorced, was the child's biological mother.

Right

Jenkins, the woman trying to gain custody of the child, was not the child's biological mother.

Right

The actual issue is that after Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia (which does not recognise civil unions) she did some judicial stuff to become the child's sole parent.

Right, problem #1. By any standard of decency, she is the only parent involved in this battle. This other wretch has nothing to do with the child being here. Therefore, Miller shouldn't have needed to do anything judicially, to become the sole parent, she was already the sole parent, excluding the father.

Jenkins appealed this judicial stuff and got permission to have visiting rights which Miller didn't comply with. Consequently the courts granted Jenkins sole custody of the child,

Right. On what grounds does she have a right to visitation if Mom says no?? Right, she should have absolutely 0 rights, she is nothing to the child except a part time babysitter. Miller is the mother, and the only parent in the picture. That should be end of story.

however Miller and the child have disappeared.

I don't blame her a bit.

Your entire post is based off a blatant lack of knowledge of anything to do with the case.

Other than my opinion differing from yours, what did I get wrong?? It's all right there in the video.

Reading your OP, I thought you thought Jenkins was the biological mother - sorry.

No biggie

However this case wouldn't have been decided any differently if Jenkins was a man.

Jenkins and Miller get married, can't have kids (Jenkins is sterile), do in artificial insemination, and have a baby. Then they get divorced, as per normal custody ruling Miller gets primary custody of the child and Jenkins gets visitation rights. Miller moves to Virginia to get a more favourable custody ruling, the courts declare her the sole parent of the child, against the ruling of the Vermont court. This violates the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, consequently the Vermont ruling is upheld. The mother still fails to recognise visitation rights (which are legally binding), consequently she loses custody of the child and the father is given full custody.

The sperm donor would have relinquished parental rights as the father, and the husband has to sign to consent to adopt the child and be recognized legally as the father. This did not happen with Jenkins, nor should it have. She is neither the mother nor the father.

The fact that Jenkins is a woman doesn't change anything or affect the decision of the courts in any way.

It does change the situation. No matter how you want to argue it, a child only has one biological mother and taking the child away from the mother should only be done in extreme circumstances.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 8:00:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:53:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:22:50 PM, Enji wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:12:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 6:29:44 PM, Enji wrote:
You have your facts all wrong.

Miller, the woman given custody of the child when the two women divorced, was the child's biological mother.

Right

Jenkins, the woman trying to gain custody of the child, was not the child's biological mother.

Right

The actual issue is that after Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia (which does not recognise civil unions) she did some judicial stuff to become the child's sole parent.

Right, problem #1. By any standard of decency, she is the only parent involved in this battle. This other wretch has nothing to do with the child being here. Therefore, Miller shouldn't have needed to do anything judicially, to become the sole parent, she was already the sole parent, excluding the father.

Jenkins appealed this judicial stuff and got permission to have visiting rights which Miller didn't comply with. Consequently the courts granted Jenkins sole custody of the child,

Right. On what grounds does she have a right to visitation if Mom says no?? Right, she should have absolutely 0 rights, she is nothing to the child except a part time babysitter. Miller is the mother, and the only parent in the picture. That should be end of story.

however Miller and the child have disappeared.

I don't blame her a bit.

Your entire post is based off a blatant lack of knowledge of anything to do with the case.

Other than my opinion differing from yours, what did I get wrong?? It's all right there in the video.

Reading your OP, I thought you thought Jenkins was the biological mother - sorry.

No biggie

However this case wouldn't have been decided any differently if Jenkins was a man.

Jenkins and Miller get married, can't have kids (Jenkins is sterile), do in artificial insemination, and have a baby. Then they get divorced, as per normal custody ruling Miller gets primary custody of the child and Jenkins gets visitation rights. Miller moves to Virginia to get a more favourable custody ruling, the courts declare her the sole parent of the child, against the ruling of the Vermont court. This violates the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, consequently the Vermont ruling is upheld. The mother still fails to recognise visitation rights (which are legally binding), consequently she loses custody of the child and the father is given full custody.

The sperm donor would have relinquished parental rights as the father, and the husband has to sign to consent to adopt the child and be recognized legally as the father. This did not happen with Jenkins, nor should it have. She is neither the mother nor the father.

The fact that Jenkins is a woman doesn't change anything or affect the decision of the courts in any way.

It does change the situation. No matter how you want to argue it, a child only has one biological mother and taking the child away from the mother should only be done in extreme circumstances.

In Vermont parental rights are given to both parents.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 8:02:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:22:33 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:12:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 6:29:44 PM, Enji wrote:
You have your facts all wrong.

Miller, the woman given custody of the child when the two women divorced, was the child's biological mother.

Right

Jenkins, the woman trying to gain custody of the child, was not the child's biological mother.

Right

The actual issue is that after Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia (which does not recognise civil unions) she did some judicial stuff to become the child's sole parent.

Right, problem #1. By any standard of decency, she is the only parent involved in this battle. This other wretch has nothing to do with the child being here. Therefore, Miller shouldn't have needed to do anything judicially, to become the sole parent, she was already the sole parent, excluding the father.

Jenkins appealed this judicial stuff and got permission to have visiting rights which Miller didn't comply with. Consequently the courts granted Jenkins sole custody of the child,

Right. On what grounds does she have a right to visitation if Mom says no?? Right, she should have absolutely 0 rights, she is nothing to the child except a part time babysitter. Miller is the mother, and the only parent in the picture. That should be end of story.

Part time babysitter? In the child's eyes, both mothers are just as much her mom.

So how long do you continue the lie before telling her the truth??
Do you wait until she's old enough to find out on her own that all kids have a mother and father, and that no kid really has two moms or two dads, because only a mommy and a daddy can actually make a baby??

however Miller and the child have disappeared.

I don't blame her a bit.

Your entire post is based off a blatant lack of knowledge of anything to do with the case.

Other than my opinion differing from yours, what did I get wrong?? It's all right there in the video.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 8:07:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:25:10 PM, Enji wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:19:11 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:00:53 PM, Enji wrote:

This issue is pretty much entirely sorted out by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act which predates any civil unions in the US by 20 years. The biological mother attempted to circumvent the decision of the Vermont state court by moving to Virginia and attempting to establish a new court ruling, violating the PKPA. The decision of the Vermont court was upheld (due to the PKPA), giving the non-biological mother visitation rights which the biological mother did not comply with. The biological mother repeatedly and consistently violated the established visitation rights which are legally binding - consequently she lost custody of the child. This case is pretty cut-and-dry and has nothing to do with the sexuality of the mothers.

Yes about the custody violation, but no about why the biological mother was given custody in the first place. It only came up because the couple split, but it implies that one of the mothers has stronger rights than the other. I don't know anything about the law, but it's interesting, that's all.

I suppose that aspect of the case is less clearly defined (the courts gave Miller primary custody because she was the biological parent, but I don't believe that's clearly outlined anywhere), however that doesn't have much to do with medic's complaint.

It kinda does because Lisa Miller should never have had to go to court to get custody of HER OWN CHILD, from someone who isn't even related to the child. The case should have been thrown out and not even heard by a court. Miller is the mother, end of story.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 8:09:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 7:53:22 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:22:50 PM, Enji wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:12:31 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 6:29:44 PM, Enji wrote:
You have your facts all wrong.

Miller, the woman given custody of the child when the two women divorced, was the child's biological mother.

Right

Jenkins, the woman trying to gain custody of the child, was not the child's biological mother.

Right

The actual issue is that after Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia (which does not recognise civil unions) she did some judicial stuff to become the child's sole parent.

Right, problem #1. By any standard of decency, she is the only parent involved in this battle. This other wretch has nothing to do with the child being here. Therefore, Miller shouldn't have needed to do anything judicially, to become the sole parent, she was already the sole parent, excluding the father.

Jenkins appealed this judicial stuff and got permission to have visiting rights which Miller didn't comply with. Consequently the courts granted Jenkins sole custody of the child,

Right. On what grounds does she have a right to visitation if Mom says no?? Right, she should have absolutely 0 rights, she is nothing to the child except a part time babysitter. Miller is the mother, and the only parent in the picture. That should be end of story.

however Miller and the child have disappeared.

I don't blame her a bit.

Your entire post is based off a blatant lack of knowledge of anything to do with the case.

Other than my opinion differing from yours, what did I get wrong?? It's all right there in the video.

Reading your OP, I thought you thought Jenkins was the biological mother - sorry.

No biggie

However this case wouldn't have been decided any differently if Jenkins was a man.

Jenkins and Miller get married, can't have kids (Jenkins is sterile), do in artificial insemination, and have a baby. Then they get divorced, as per normal custody ruling Miller gets primary custody of the child and Jenkins gets visitation rights. Miller moves to Virginia to get a more favourable custody ruling, the courts declare her the sole parent of the child, against the ruling of the Vermont court. This violates the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, consequently the Vermont ruling is upheld. The mother still fails to recognise visitation rights (which are legally binding), consequently she loses custody of the child and the father is given full custody.

The sperm donor would have relinquished parental rights as the father, and the husband has to sign to consent to adopt the child and be recognized legally as the father. This did not happen with Jenkins, nor should it have. She is neither the mother nor the father.

The fact that Jenkins is a woman doesn't change anything or affect the decision of the courts in any way.

It does change the situation. No matter how you want to argue it, a child only has one biological mother and taking the child away from the mother should only be done in extreme circumstances.

Just so we're clear, you would have problem with all the above events as long as Jenkins was a sterile man?

That if the mother didn't give the non-biological father visitation rights, the state should take the child away?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2013 8:09:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/9/2013 8:07:25 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:25:10 PM, Enji wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:19:11 PM, rross wrote:
At 7/9/2013 7:00:53 PM, Enji wrote:

This issue is pretty much entirely sorted out by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act which predates any civil unions in the US by 20 years. The biological mother attempted to circumvent the decision of the Vermont state court by moving to Virginia and attempting to establish a new court ruling, violating the PKPA. The decision of the Vermont court was upheld (due to the PKPA), giving the non-biological mother visitation rights which the biological mother did not comply with. The biological mother repeatedly and consistently violated the established visitation rights which are legally binding - consequently she lost custody of the child. This case is pretty cut-and-dry and has nothing to do with the sexuality of the mothers.

Yes about the custody violation, but no about why the biological mother was given custody in the first place. It only came up because the couple split, but it implies that one of the mothers has stronger rights than the other. I don't know anything about the law, but it's interesting, that's all.

I suppose that aspect of the case is less clearly defined (the courts gave Miller primary custody because she was the biological parent, but I don't believe that's clearly outlined anywhere), however that doesn't have much to do with medic's complaint.

It kinda does because Lisa Miller should never have had to go to court to get custody of HER OWN CHILD, from someone who isn't even related to the child. The case should have been thrown out and not even heard by a court. Miller is the mother, end of story.

Only if you ignore Vermont law.