Article: "Lesbian 'mother' case presents constitutional issue"

Submitted by liberty on Wed, 2009-12-30 18:36

Article here. Excerpt:

'A Vermont judge has ruled that the birth mother of a Virginia girl must turn custody of the child over to a former lesbian partner. Could this be another benchmark for custody dispute issues?

Lisa Miller was in a homosexual relationship with Janet Jenkins in Vermont, but Miller became a Christian, gave up her former lifestyle and moved to Virginia with her daughter. Although Jenkins is not the biological mother and never tried to adopt the now seven-year-old Isabella, Vermont Judge William Cohen ordered Miller to turn the girl over to Jenkins this Friday. Attorney Steve Crampton tells OneNewsNow that Liberty Counsel argued before a Virginia judge last week, asking for Miller's protection.

"There's a very serious constitutional issue regarding whether Virginia must enforce the Vermont court order," the attorney notes. "So the clock is ticking quite loudly right now, and it remains to be seen whether we can get any relief in Virginia."'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

I could see the same issue coming up between two men, one the biol. father of the child. The same legal problem would arise. It would come down to the interpretation of that there Art IV sect. 1 of the US Con'n (See http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec1). On top of that, "family courts" have been interpreted to be distinct types from civil and criminal and so the judges really can do what they feel is "in the best interests of the child", held to account by review of higher courts only rarely and when there is a fairly significant matter at hand. So gee, were the FFs thinking that there would one day be a set of courts that would be created that could issue documents like Decrees for Custody and Support (did they have those in 1787? -- umm, no...) that were outside Art. IV sect One's scope?

I dunno. I am guessing they never thought 2009 would look like this, not in their wildest dreams/nightmares. A tangled web indeed...

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Wed, 2009-12-30 19:36

The child was conceived while they were a "married" couple (civil union) via artificial insemination. This gives the assumption that they intended to be a family with the child having two mothers. Unless the biological mother can prove otherwise (unlikely), she needs to share custody.

I don't like it when people go back on their agreement after the children are conceived. Separation happens, but you should be obligated to keep the parental agreement as complete as possible.

I don't think this could have an impact on custody issues when heterosexuals live together and a non-biological partner assumes the role of parent to the child because I think 'agreement at the time of conception' is a key factor. Most live-in situations with one non-biological parent weren't together at the time of conception; and they don't have the same level of commitment to the relationship that marriage or civil union indicates.

On a side note: The fact that the female partner did not adopt the child raises a slight red flag. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to know that this is the only way to protect your parental rights in this situation. And by not adopting this would/should lawfully relieve you of parental responsibilities. (I am wondering if they received public assistance as a single parent family, as I cannot understand why the other mother did not adopt.)

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kris on Thu, 2009-12-31 03:05