Vt. judge: Birth mom must give child to ex-partner

Miss Miller you need to flee with the child and sever all contact

sock wrote:

Miss Miller you need to flee with the child and sever all contact

I agree!

And who pays the price? THE CHILD

Isn't gay marriage, artificial insemination of single women, and in-your-face liberal judges a great thing? This gal was "born gay" but she was re-born a heterosexual Christian!

Put the child up for adoption. Being raised by in a normal family enviroment is the only chance this child has.

The only one I feel bad for here is the child, regardless of whatever bad decisions the couple made, the kid is 7 years old now and hasn't seen the mother's ex-partner since she was a baby. The psychological damage of sending her to live with someone else at this point will be tremendous. Stupid selfish adults.

For what reason?
Judicial hubris?

The lesbian ex parter has no DNA
in the game at all.

This is political correctness run amuck.

The birth mother is quite correct
to show contempt for such a court.
I'm sure she will find a support network
to keep her and her child safe from
the sin that has been decreed from the bench.

Even if the Judge has a picture of Janet Reno
on her office wall there is no excuse for this.

Return the child to the birth parent, then sterilize both the adults involved.

thomas paine wrote:

And who pays the price? THE CHILD

Yep.

FlacidBoy wrote:

For what reason?
Judicial hubris?
The lesbian ex parter has no DNA
in the game at all.
This is political correctness run amuck.
The birth mother is quite correct
to show contempt for such a court.
I'm sure she will find a support network
to keep her and her child safe from
the sin that has been decreed from the bench.
Even if the Judge has a picture of Janet Reno
on her office wall there is no excuse for this.

DNA has nothing to do with it (in some states). If you sign that birth certificate you are a legal parent. I'm not saying I agree but that's the way it is. Also, judges can pretty much do what they want in family court and unless you have at least five grand to appeal you are screwed.

thomas paine wrote:

And who pays the price? THE CHILD

Unfortuneatly, you are right however, IMO in this circumstance the child would be better off being raised by her single biological mother.

No daddy around wrote:

<quoted text>
I take it the child is black

WHAT!!?

Taking the girl away from the only home and the only parent she has known is cruel. The girl should be left where she is and introduced to the other mother through court ordered supervised visits over just taking her away.

This shouldn't be viewed any different than any other child custody case. They were legally a couple when the child was born and while only one is the biological parent of their daughter, both are considered by the law to be legally her parents. Miller proposed the original shared custody agreement when their relationship went sour, but reneged on it almost immediately, taking their child out of state to go judge shopping for one to take her side. The problem with that is that the federal law is written to prevent just those kind of shenanigans, when the first state rules, all others have to follow. Miller has been flouting court ruling after court ruling out of nothing more than a malicious contempt for her ex. After nearly five years of this crap, it isn't surprising that a judge has finally said enough is enough to Miller. She's been playing a sick game against her ex and using THEIR child as a pawn, game over, she no longer deserves custody.

Rick in Kansas, your right, she doesn't deserve custody, but either does someone she shacked up with for three years, who has no biological connection to her. The child deserves a fresh start with two decent parents!

Wasp wrote:

Rick in Kansas, your right, she doesn't deserve custody, but either does someone she shacked up with for three years, who has no biological connection to her. The child deserves a fresh start with two decent parents!

They weren't shacked up together, but in a legally binding civil union (which at the time was the legal equivalent of a marriage). Jenkins has been fighting for the right to see their daughter under the agreement that her ex proposed almost five years ago. Neither she or their daughter should be punished for Miller's bad acts.

Can't wait to see this child support claim...too bad it didn't happen in MN so someone could have employed a bankruptcy attorney too.

This is no different than if a straight widow with child married a man, creating a new daddy for the child -- then when splitting up, the court may indeed find the no-DNA parent the best one for the child.

I think one reason some oppose same-sex marriages is that the traditional rules won't apply any more. Some refer to the "mommy courts," but when both parents are female -- or male -- the old stereotypes and bromides will no longer apply.

I think it would be GREAT to shake things up, and have judges consider the parties on their merits -- not mainly their genders.

This judge is a cruel political commissar, torturing a little kid to gain kudos from the "liberal" Establishment. The birth mother needs to go underground into hiding, just as the Franks had to hide from the "liberals" from Germany that occupied Holland in the 1940s. The mother and her daughter are in grave danger for defying and offending America's Master Race, the "liberals".

The poor kid will grow up so screwed up. Yikes!

Madaman wrote:

This is no different than if a straight widow with child married a man, creating a new daddy for the child -- then when splitting up, the court may indeed find the no-DNA parent the best one for the child.
I think one reason some oppose same-sex marriages is that the traditional rules won't apply any more. Some refer to the "mommy courts," but when both parents are female -- or male -- the old stereotypes and bromides will no longer apply.
I think it would be GREAT to shake things up, and have judges consider the parties on their merits -- not mainly their genders.