Anti-gay Lisa Miller may have kidnapped little Isabella and fled

[FreeState]

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/12/29/18909?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BoxTurtleBulletin+%28Box+Turtle+Bulletin%29

After a long and contentious custody battle between previously civilly united couple Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins, a judge has awarded primary custody to Janet Jenkins. Miller was to turn over 6 7 year old Isabella to Jenkins on Friday, January 1, 2010.

Although the couple brought Isabella into the world together with the intention of raising her as theirs, after the separation Miller readopted a conservative religious faith and believed that this entitled her to thwart the law, break visitation agreements, and deny Jenkins her rights.

Miller was encouraged and supported in her decision but the political arm of conservative Christianity, appearing as a victim in Christian press and as a cause for fundraising appeals. Such stories often ignored the facts of the case, instead simply pitting a Born Again Christian against an Evil Homosexual trying to steal an Innocent Child.

But Miller’s bluster has run out. Although she is still appealing decisions, it now appears that courts are not going to find in her favor.

So she has disappeared. (Times Argus)

Miller’s attorneys filed a motion earlier this month asking Cohen to delay his order until an appeal in the Virginia court system — regarding whether that state needed to enforce the Vermont order — was decided.

But in a two-page decision issued by Cohen, the judge said Miller failed to meet the legal burden required to delay the order in part because she has not appeared in court nor spoken with her attorneys about the case for more than a month.

“Ms. Miller has not demonstrated that she is entitled to a stay. … Instead, it appears that Ms. Miller has ceased contact with her attorneys and disappeared with (Isabella). … Such conduct does not show that a stay is warranted,” Cohen wrote.

The whereabouts of Miller couldn’t be determined Monday. Miller’s principal lawyers in Orlando, Fla., could not be reached Monday afternoon.

We will see whether Miller shows up on Friday. Her counsel should advise her that failing to do so will be disastrous to her case. Should she fail to produce Isabella, she will not only be in contempt of court but she will be considered a suspect for kidnap.

Judges are not inclined to find sympathy with scofflaws and kidnappers. And even religious folk may find it challenging to believe that the best interest of the child is to be on the run.

[Tailormyst]

1. I do hope the little girl is back in Janet's arm soon.

I would hate to see another child poisoned by the such bigotry.

[FreeState]

4. I hope so too n/t

[cali]

2. I'm betting she took Isabella and fled- with the help of anti-gay fundies

[Maru Kitteh]

3. vindictive and petty ex-partners will employ whatever seedy means available to punish and hurt

those they formerly swore to love always. It's especially sick when they use children to do it and doubly so when they cower and snipe from the folds of religion to make their attacks.

Being an asshole of an ex is a pretty much equal opportunity venture, unfortunately.

[FreeState]

5. All true - but in this case the religous are using the family to push their social aggenda

Which is frightening to say the least.

[orion007]

6. Read just how frightening, Newsweek article

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172554/page/3

[JI7]

7. has there been an amber alert ?

[FreeState]

9. I dont think there can be one until the handover date n/t

[rebecca_herman]

8. The only one I pity here is the child

I have no pity for either of the adults involved in the situation. No matter what this child loses out. Her going to live with someone she hasn't seen in years at her age will be hugely traumatic. I don't see this as a gay rights issue or a religious issue or anything - just an innocent child who is going to lose out because no one in her life fully cares about her best interests.

[FreeState]

10. The lesbian mother has been fighting to get access to her child for years

she has done no wrong in her quest in my opinion. However her ex partner has continually flaunted the law and kept the child from her other mother at the urging of "Christian" fundamentalist.

It was a hard decision for the judge but I agree with him - the childs best interest is to have both parents involved with her life - and the only way to get that accomplished to to grand custody to the only parent not breaking the law by keeping the child away from her Mom.

[rebecca_herman]

11. *shrug* Sorry, but I disagree

I think both parents are being selfish here and not behaving like adults with the child's best interest in mind. My personal view of the situation is that they both want to get back at each other but the one who is really being hurt and punished is the child who did not choose to be born into this situation. The bio mom shouldn't have disobeyed the visitation order, but tearing the child away from the mother she has lived with and been cared for from birth isn't right either. While it's an overall sucky situation I just disagree that the exact choice the judge made is best for the child at this point. Years ago maybe yes, at this point, no. That child is going to be in for a world of trauma and hurt and I feel very very sad for her. Sorry but I just find it so hard to believe that someone who truly loved a child would tear them away from their life that way. I just can't ever agree with taking a child away from the parent they have lived with their *entire* life unless serious abuse (physical or sexual) is going on. People who disrupt adoptions after 5 years because something wasn't signed correctly and they have regrets piss me off too. Too many people think of themselves, of what they want, of where/how they want that child raised and not the trauma the child will endure for the adults to get their way.

I feel like too many here (from every thread I have read on this topic) is jumping on the hate the bio mom bandwagon because of her religious beliefs. I don't think that has anything to do with anything. I would feel the same way whether it's a lesbian couple or an athiest heterosexual divorced couple where one parent is willing to remove a child from the only home they have ever known to get custody. I think it's crappy of the parents. I think it's absolutely wretched for the child. I don't feel the child is being put first in this situation.

[orion007]

12. This wasn't a custody battle, it was for visitation rights

Then Ms. Miller proceeds to conveniently have a "religious epiphany" one Sunday.
With that came the pro-bono legal assistance from the fundies.Her religion has everything to do with this case,because that's her case for not letting her daughter visit her other mother.
Have you read the Newsweek piece?
What's very funny is Newsweek's religion writer is also named Lisa Miller.
Maybe Ms. Miller would have understood if the judge had done a "King Solomon"

[rebecca_herman]

13. I've read it... doesn't change my opinion

I don't care if they are gay or straight, athiest or religious, I don't care what their reasons are at all... what I care about is what this child is going to have to endure because of adults who hate each other too much to truly put her first. It's all about what the adults want... no one cares about the trauma this child will endure losing the only home she has known at age 7 to live with a stranger... was the bio mom right in the first place to refuse the visitation? For what it's worth no, I don't think she was. But punishing her for it only punishes the child worse. I am very pro-child, and I don't think this is a pro-child decision, just a pro-stupid selfish adults one.

[orion007]

16. So then the all the selfish bio-mother's in the world

can just refuse to let the other parent see their children?
End of story?
I can understand your concern for the child, and you are right,this is and will remain traumatic for her, but I don't agree with letting this child stay with her bio mom under these circumstance as being pro-child.
I also don't see the Vermont mother as being the selfish one, she wanted to see her child,and if she didn't many would call her selfish.
I remember when the 2 gals were joined in their civil union.

[FreeState]

14. If it has nothing to do with religion why is she being represented by a group

with this mission statement?

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?pid=14096

Liberty Counsel is a nonprofit litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. Established in 1989, Liberty Counsel is a nationwide organization with offices in Florida, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., and hundreds of affiliate attorneys across the Nation.

Recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization, Liberty Counsel is funded by donations from concerned individuals, churches and organizations across the country. Donations to this ministry are tax-deductible.

Liberty Counsel provides pro bono legal assistance in the areas of religious liberty, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family. Educational material available through Liberty Counsel includes informational brochures addressing students' and teachers' rights on public school campuses, political activity of nonprofit organizations, and many more.

I mean if it has nothing at all to do with religion why not hire a family lawyer or divorce layer like most people?

Why are you not concerned with what she is being told about her other mother? You said: "I just can't ever agree with taking a child away from the parent they have lived with their *entire* life unless serious abuse (physical or sexual) is going on." Im sorry but psychological abuse? Its much worse IMO. Its the main reason the Judge ruled the way he did.

We have to stop supporting rewards for those that take children away from their parents.

[rebecca_herman]

18. and ripping her away from her home isn't psychological abuse?

If I was forced to leave my mom at age 7... the reason why wouldn't have mattered - I would have hated the people who took me away from her *forever.*
The ex is going to regret this when the child hates her for what she did to her.
It's not about rewarding the parent who refused the visitation it's about protecting the CHILD. If you punish the parent you punish the child 10 times more.
When I said religion didn't matter I meant that the religion of the parties involved doesn't change my opinion at all - that taking away from her home and the mother she loves is worse for her than the alternative. I think they should do the most they can to enforce visitation but if it fails you don't emotionally torture the child in order to get back at the parent who didn't allow vistation.

[Pithlet]

19. And keeping her away from her ohter parent wasn't abuse in the first place?

Your view and your way of doing things would only lead to way more of that sort of thing. Give the incentive for more people to ignore visitation rights, and that's exactly what happens. Parental rights and visitation orders have to mean something.

[rebecca_herman]

20. As I believe I have mentioned in another post

I think both adults involved were selfish and thought of themselves first and not the child. However I strongly feel at this point that taking the child from her home is MORE detrimental, MORE harmful, and MORE abusive than the alternative.
She has a mother she loves. She has a home she loves. Taking her from that will cause her intense trauma. It has a high chance of making her hate the stranger who is tearing her from all she loves. To torture a child that way is just plain wrong. If the ex gave a crap about the child she wouldn't take away from that child everything she has.

[Pithlet]

22. Your view is just about the most narrow minded I think I've ever seen.

So, no thought for the trauma that other children will feel when their parents will violate court orders and keep them from their other parents they'll never see again?

[rebecca_herman]

25. And I think your view is narrow-minded

That being a "parent" trumps all. That the suffering of a specific child doesn't matter as long as "rights" are enforced. What about the child's rights to a safe and happy environment with the only parent she knows? She doesn't have a relationship with this woman. The couple broke up when she was an infant. The other woman had the legal right to adopt her before that and declined to. Sending a child to live with a stranger that they haven't lived with since they were a baby isn't enforcing parental rights, it's enforcing insanity.

[Pithlet]

28. So basically, children are open season. You think that's in their best interest?

That's insane.

[Pithlet]

23. And you are really overstating the "torture" she'd be experiencing.

For one thing, I think it's questionable just how loving and competent a parent can be who would abuse a child. Because yes, I do consider it abuse when one parent will keep a child away from another for no good reason. Number two, she would be going into the loving arms of another parent. It's not as if she's being turned over to an institution or foster care. I'm not saying it would be easier for her, but I do think she'd do a lot better than you make it out to be.

[rebecca_herman]

26. I disagree

I've known a lot of 7 year olds kids who were VERY close to their primary caregiver parent. I was one of those 7 year olds that was GLUED to my mother. If I had been taken away... it never would have been resolved... I would have hated those people forever.
But keep telling yourself it won't be torturous for her if it helps you sleep at night. You can call the other woman a parent... but to this girl... she is a stranger... she is being sent off to a STRANGER.

[Pithlet]

32. You know what? That's why it's a good idea for adults who know better

to obey custody orders. Because they know that courts are going to enforce them. They know that it just might be traumatizing if they cut off all contact with the other parent, and then the courts enforce it anyway. Look, there may indeed be some trauma involved. Guess who's fault that is? THE PARENT WHO MADE THE DECISION TO CUT OFF ALL CONTACT. Yes, you would have suffered truama had you been separated from your mother. I know I would have too. I know my mother wasn't a witch who kept me from my other parent against court ordres. I'm assuming your wasn't either. See the difference?

[rebecca_herman]

38. and that's no excuse to traumatize a child

I guess you don't care if kids suffer as long as your "ideals" are upheld
it doesn't matter WHOSE fault is was, any REASONABLE adult who loved a child wouldn't take them away from everything to get their way. The child is going to see it at this stranger's fault and hate her forever, but gee that's totally the way they resolve it, send her to live with a stranger she will resent forever, that will totally give this woman the parental relationship she wants so badly.

[Pithlet]

39. It's not about getting one's way

Answer this. What is the point of custody agreements then?? What is the point of even having them if they can't be enforced?

[Pithlet]

41. Here's anohter question

Do you think children benefit at all from having both parents in their lives? Do you think there is any benefit at all from setting up any sort of arrangements ensuring this happens?

[rebecca_herman]

45. not always

If the only way to get both parents in a child's life will cause them severe trauma/instability, than I think the alternative is better.

[Pithlet]

46. But sometimes, right?

I mean, you aren't completely against custody agreements, are you? Do you agree that fathers should be in a child's life?

[rebecca_herman]

48. Sometimes, yes

But if the absolute only way to have both parents in the child's life is to take the child after many years from a home they have lived in their whole life, from the only person they know as a parent, and send them to live with a person who is a stranger to them - in that case, my answer is no.

[Pithlet]

49. So, your position basically does invalidate custody orders, then.

Talk about children being ripped from homes to homes they've never known. Without enforced custody orders that because much more common.

[rebecca_herman]

50. Then find a way to punish the parent without punishing the child

If they seriously can't come up with a way to ensure that this child sees the other parent without destroying her entire life... then maybe they aren't smart enough to be allowed to make decisions that harm a child so badly.

[Pithlet]

52. I don't agree with you that it's punishing the child.

I don't think a parent that kidnaps a child (because that's essentially what it is) is a fit parent. Kids bond with unfit parents, but that doesn't meant they shouldn't be removed from their care. I do think that a parent who wilfully keeps a child away from a parent from years against court order should lose custody. Absolutely. I'm sorry. They aren't acting in the best interest of their child.

[rebecca_herman]

53. I actually think they are both pretty crappy parents

I think they are both selfish. I think they both are putting what they want above what is best for the child. The difference is I think the parent who wants to take that child away from everything she knows and loves is the crappier of the two crappy parents.

[Pithlet]

54. Then you must think most parents are pretty crappy then

Because guess what? Most parents will fight to get their kids back. Welcome to reality.

[rebecca_herman]

56. I never said that lots of people aren't selfish

Because lots of people are selfish. Lots of people make crappy choices. That's reality. That doesn't make it right to further harm a child. The birth parents who regret their adoption decision 5, 10 years down the road and find some small detail that made the adoption invalid (a detail that was usually their fault in the first place, such as lying about who the bio dad was) are just fighting to get their kids back too. Doesn't make it "right."
I like to hope if I was in this situation and absolutely all attempts at getting visitation failed and the child was a stranger to me... that I would let the child stay in their home and attempt to form a relationship when the child was an adult... which I think would have a higher chance of that relationship being positive than how the child would feel towards me if I yanked her away from the only home/parent she knew. But maybe I'd be selfish too, who knows? I just hope I wouldn't be.

[Pithlet]

59. That child isn't a stranger to her. It's her child!

Letting her child stay in the home of someone who was so indifferent to the rights of that child that she risked her wellbeing by ignoring court orders? Seriously? No way.

And it would harm the rights of other children who would have the ties to their own parents seriously weakened by such a decision. Parental rights are a bond in and of themselves that serve to protect as well as occasionally lead to messy legal wrangling like this one. You seem to want to ignore that. What good does that bond my child and I have that you hold so sacred, if anyone can come in and break that, and use your very argument to block me? Your argument is dangerous.

[rebecca_herman]

61. the woman may think of herself as a parent

But to the child, she isn't a parent. She is a stranger. She is someone she has no bond or relationship with. She is someone who is taking her away from the life she loves. And you seriously think that can end well in any way?

[Pithlet]

64. Yes, I do. Because she IS a parent.

You're simply wrong. Just because the other parent was successful in keeping the child away long enough to keep that bond from forming doesn't mean she isn't the parent. Your argument that that stunt should be rewarded is appalling. She's seven so she's young enough that a bond could easily reform.

[rebecca_herman]

65. she can scream all she wants she is the parent

that isn't going to make her a parent in the child's mind. just someone who took her away from her mommy.

[Pithlet]

67. Not right off the bat. But she will eventually become the mommy. Especially at seven years old.

andit will be better than being with a criminal who disregards her wellbeing who thinks it's perfectly okay to keep her from her other parent against court order. Surely you don't believe in leaving children with unfit parents?

[rebecca_herman]

70. She gets an unfit parent either way

I just think the one who wants to take her away from her life and her mommy is the more unfit one commiting the bigger crime.
And for all you know, the child may never love her, just resent her forever for what she did to her. I know plenty of adults who feel that way. I know a woman whose relationship with her father was permanently damaged because she wanted to live with her mother, her father forced her to live with him part of the time to get revenge on her mother, and now she hates her father and doesn't feel she can ever have a loving relationship with him.

[Pithlet]

72. Edit scratch that . Nevermind.

There's just no point.

[rebecca_herman]

73. You want the honest answer? Fine you can have it

Their best interests should come first... not want either parent wants. If they would be truly traumatized by having to leave their home, and if this was the only parent they had ever known, and the other person was a stranger to them... in that case I do feel having both parents in their lives does not outweigh their emotional wellbeing if they would suffer extreme trauma and displacement by going to live with the parent who is a stranger to them.

[Pithlet]

74. Yo missed my edit. I'd said never mind.

I think you're a bit immature. Well, now that you've answered. How come it's not okay when it's the grandma?

[rebecca_herman]

76. Yeah, and I think the ex-partner is *really* immature

Yeah, eff up a child's entire world and life to get your way.... really mature. *rolls eyes*

[Pithlet]

80. Immature for deciding to be victimzed?

Wha??? She didn't decide to have her child kept from her.

[rebecca_herman]

83. no

no she didn't, but it is what it is unless you have a time machine. So in the end, she'd rather disrupt that child's entire world just to get what she wants....

[Pithlet]

87. This is where I got the immature thing from. Not meant as an insult.

It really is an immature view of parenthood. It isn't just getting what she wants. When people become parents, they are parents for life. That is their child for life. She isn't just getting what she wants. When a person has been kept from their child, that is a grievous crime to both parent and child. The fact you don't get that shows a level of immaturity and ignorance about human nature. The fact that child doesn't know her and hasn't formed a bond with her is a result of a criminal act perpetrated by the other parent. The courts seek to right that wrong for both the parent and the child. You are blaming the victim. The trauma the child will suffer is something they will both have to go through together, and it is the fault of neither of them. To put the fault on her shoulders is extremely unfair. The blame lies squarely and solely with the criminal who perpetrated the act.

[rebecca_herman]

89. And if she loved that child she wouldn't try to hurt her so horrifically

I don't think I am being immature. I think I am a lot more mature than the idiotic adults involved in this situation. The child doesn't HAVE to go to through trauma. It could be ENTIRELY prevented. It is entirely in this woman's power to not destroy her child's life, she still will have the option to try and build a relationship with her child someday. But no. She has to have it NOW. What the child knows and loves be damned, she wants that kid and she has to have her no matter the cost. Newsflash, being a parent doesn't mean you automatically make good decisions for your child. And this is one of those decisions that isn't good, and any judge who can't see that is a moron obsessed with "punishing" the "criminal" and not concerned about what this little girl needs.

[Pithlet]

91. Sometiems parents do have to do things that cause their children pain. That's reality.

Sometimes even extreme pain. In fact, chances are, most parents have to at some point. It's a fact of life. In this instance, it's extreme. But she can't leave her child with a criminal who kept her away from her. She can't. No parent would. Your view is extremely unfair and unreasonable.

[rebecca_herman]

96. lol... criminal

your worldview is so warped I don't even know where to start.
I guess you are lucky you weren't ever this child. You'd probably have a different view if you were.
She could quite easily leave this child with the woman who is emotionally the only parent this child has. But nope. She'd rather cause her permanent pain. That's not being a parent. That's being a monster.
Not that I have much sympathy for the idiotic biological mother either. It sounded like she mostly just wanted a baby so she should have been a single mother by choice (no legal 2nd parent). She screwed up too. I don't care if she suffers. And I'm sure she suffers every day for her stupid decisions. And that's fine by me.
It's the child I care about. And the child would suffer less staying in her current home. But you can't see that at all. You are so obsessed about her mom being a "criminal" and how that automatically makes that home worse for her despite her strong bond to it and the fact that the other woman is a stranger to her....

uggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggh I really give up this time.

[Pithlet]

97. Yes the warped view that doesn't think kidnappers should get to keep the kids. LOL. n/t

[rebecca_herman]

77. Because they aren't the parent who has been raising the child from day 1

If there was a grandmother who had custody of a child from birth, and the bio parent only had visitation, and the visitation stopped for whatever reason, I wouldn't feel that the grandmother should lose custody just to punish her, it only punishes the kid.
If this couple had split up this year when the kid was 7, and she wanted to see both parents, sure she should, more should be done to enforce visitation with both parents. But that's not what happened... they split up when she was a newborn, even back when the visitation happened she spent very little time there... this is a woman she has never really lived with or had that kind of bond with.

[Pithlet]

79. Right. But they shouldn't have ever been the only one from the beginnint.

Why are you missing that.

[rebecca_herman]

82. Ok, so do you have a way to go back in time?

No? I'm guessing not?

[Pithlet]

84. Nope. That's why we have the courts.

When people break the law and become criminals, the courts make it right.

[rebecca_herman]

86. But they aren't making it right

They are causing a world of harm and hurt to this little child who didn't choose what situation she would be born into. They aren't making it right at all. In fact they are inflicting a horrific wrong on this innocent child who did NOTHING wrong. Nothing. She is being made to suffer for the mistakes of adults and that's not making it right at ALL.

[Pithlet]

88. Yes, they are.

She can work through the pain and trauma withe her daughter. It's something they can work through together. Your blaming her for a wrong she didn't commit is extremely unfair, like I just said in my other post.

[rebecca_herman]

90. You know what, I freaking GIVE UP

They aren't making it right, and you are wrong. This child is going to be hurt so badly and you don't give a crap. All this trauma can be avoided but you don't give a crap. You are so obsessed with "punishing" the "criminal" just like this so-called judge. In every sense that matters she is NOT this child's mother. She has NO relationship with the child. She is NOTHING to this child. This child will likely never get over what the adults in her life are doing to her and it makes me sick that you think this is right.

Why on earth should a child have to leave her mommy to live with a stranger! People are just freaking insane and I give up on arguing with insane people. If this was my child I would leave the country before I let my child be emotionally tortured by having to live with a stranger who is nothing to her.

[Pithlet]

92. In every sense she's not the child's mohter. Yep. That's what I suspected.

I wasted my whole time, didn't I? I thought you were fishy.

[rebecca_herman]

94. I don't get you at all. I don't see how it is fishy.

She has never fufilled the role of a parent to this child. She hasn't raised this child. She hasn't parented this child. She doesn't have a relationship with this child. She has barely seen the child since she was a baby. The bio mom didn't immediately stop visitation when they broke up. She saw her for a number of years but it was infrequent and so the child din't bond with her (maybe she would have had a bond with her if frequent visitation was ordered back then? but it wasn't). She is not the child's "mother" in the sense that the child has never had a parental relationship with her. It reminds me of the bio parents who give up a child at birth and revoke it years later on some technicality that was messed up in the legal paperwork making it invalid. They aren't really "parents" either they have never had a parental relationship or bond with the child but they use the law because they WANT that child even though the child has no relationship with them.

[Pithlet]

95. You don't get parenthood at all. You just don't.

The second I held my baby in my arms, that was it. Forever. Biology has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with it. You are clearly the one who doesn't get it. Forgive my fishy statement. It's just really hard to fathom someone not getting it as much as you do. It's easier to understand someone thinking it's the lesbian aspect of it that's got you opposed.

[rebecca_herman]

98. nah, I don't care at all about their sexual orientation

I've seen even more parents from heterosexual relationships who screw up their kids lives and force them to spend time in an unhappy home environment to get revenge on their exes or because they see the child as propety and demand their "share". I know a woman who was born from a heterosexual marriage that ended in divorce and has a permanently damaged relationship with her father as an adult because she was forced to have visitation with him despite the fact she wanted to stay with her mother and felt no parent-child bond with him due to his behavior in the home in the years leading up to the divorce... he knew she didn't want to be there, but forced her anyway because he felt he half-owned her and he wanted revenge on his ex. If he hadn't done that, just left her with her mother where she wanted to be, maybe she could have built a relationship with him as an adult... instead, she hates him for life and has barely spoken to him in years.

[Heidi]

116. " Why on earth should a child have to leave her mommy to live with a stranger"? Here's a reason:

abuse. I was adopted by virtual strangers when I was six years old. Until the moment I went to live with my new family, my biological mother had had six years of chances to do right by me: to make sure I was adequately sheltered, fed, clothed and nurtured. Due to her problems, she did none of those things, and given the chance, she would have continued doing none of those things. I was not traumatized by going to live with "a stranger." To the contrary, I learned what it is to be genuinely loved.

You would do well to think things through before you post such sweeping generalities.

[Tailormyst]

119. "In every sense that matters she is NOT this child's mother."

"In every sense that matters she is NOT this child's mother. She has NO relationship with the child. She is NOTHING to this child. "

FUCK YOU !

[tammywammy]

99. Actually the Judge concluded that while the child might experience some distress at first

it's warranted because the end result (if Lisa Miller isn't jailed) is that the child will be able to have a relationship with BOTH parents in the end. Janet will have custody and Lisa can visit. The Judge said that it's in the child's best interest to have a relationship with both parents and since Lisa is refusing to allow the other mother to visit with the child, changing custody is the only way to insure that both women are in the child's life.

Lisa has caused the harm that will come to her child by not abiding by the court ordered visitation schedule up to this point. This is Lisa's fault and that's where the blame will lay.

The court is doing the right thing.

[Pithlet]

100. Yep. All the wailing and gnashing of teeth doesn't change things.

You can't ignore court orders. That applied to child custody agreements as it does to any other court orders and there will be unpleasant consequences if you don't. She suggested upthread that there should be another solution, but all Lisa would have done was continue to not let the other mother see her. The court order was set up the way it was for a reason.

[tammywammy]

101. I guess the other solution would be cut the child in half

Maybe Lisa Miller would have understood that.

BTW, from this thread alone you're now one of my favorite posters. :)

[Pithlet]

103. She might have, lol.

Aw, shucks :)

[tammywammy]

105. What's honestly worse is that she's using Christianity as her reason to withhold visitation

As a Christian I find that repulsive, especially since Lisa accused Janet of molestation. WWJD? Not swear that someone did something as heinous as molest their own child in order to gain full custody.

But then this is the fake Jerry Falwell Christianity.

[Pithlet]

106. I know. It's awful.

It's just an ugly story. I really hope she turns up before the deadline and this doesn't turn into an even uglier one. As it is the poor girl would at leas have both of them in her life. But I have a bad feeling.

[tammywammy]

108. I have a bad feeling as well

I pray she turns up with the child, but, again, I have a bad feeling about it. :(

[Pithlet]

58. And I do get that your heart is with the child. I'm not ignoring that.

It's just that you can't ignore the big picture. You can't ignore the other kids and the consequences of ignoring parental rights. Some unfortunate consequences just can't be avoided. Actually, they could have, if her mother would have done the right thing. But she didn't. The rights of everyone else simply cannot be tossed aside because of that.

[rebecca_herman]

60. To make each decision solely about that child's best interest isn't ignoring the bigger picture

I think they really, really need to take into account the very real possibility that the child will be significantly worse off by changing the child's home, school, primary caregiver, etc after many years have gone by and the trauma of forcing a child to live away from her mother with someone who is a complete stranger to her. I think they have dismissed that in some attempt to punish the bio mother. I feel that is the case in many custody cases. But I really feel they are putting punishing the mom above the child's best interests here. I truly believe that in my heart. That this child is being harmed, and that she would be harmed less if she were allowed to stay with the parent she knows and loves, her mommy. I honestly want to cry for her. I don't care about the judge's decision, because judges aren't always right, and personally, I hope they disappear off the map and are never found again. I can't help but hope that because I feel so awful for this little girl.

[Pithlet]

62. It absolutely is.

According to you, my mother in law can traipse on up here from florida and abscond with my sons. And as long as she successfully keeps them away from me for a few years, it would cruel of me to try to take them away. According to you. That's insanity. You are indeed ignoring the bigger picture. Your argument weakens the bond I have with my kids. It's nuts.

[rebecca_herman]

66. no, because MIL wasn't a parent at all and never had custody in the first place in your example

You really don't see a difference between someone who has given birth to and raised a child for that child's entire life and someone who decides they want the kid later? really?

[Pithlet]

68. But it would break the bond they'd developed! So cruel! Won't you consider their feelings?

Same argument you're making.

[Pithlet]

69. Oh, wait a minute. You think parents can legally kidnap, then?

So you think it's okay for one parent to kidnap from another? As long as they had legal custody to begin with. That's what makes the difference? So if it was my husband who suddenly up and left with the kids, I'm shit out of luck, huh? That's real nice for me and my kids, right? So that's the view you hold? No rights for me? No rights for my kids to maintain contact with me? Nothing I can do about it, and I'm selfish if I do anything about it at any time? It's okay if I become a stranger to my sons in your view, because the laws in place right now are just so cruel for kids? So, do I have that right?

[rebecca_herman]

75. you should be allowed to see them

but if that fails you shouldn't rip them out of their home and claim it's because you love them.
I hope I could do the right thing and not force a child who I am a stranger to, to live with me.
Why do you think a child would want to live with someone they haven't lived with since they were less than 1 year old? Someone who is a complete stranger to them?

[Pithlet]

78. You're missnig the point. if you let kidnappers keep the kid. It's open season on kid!

Why are you not seeing that? Why is that hard to see? Can you maybe try to explain that? Can you not see how that would make it very appealing for people? Just keep a kid and they don't have to give it back! Can you not see how that would be bad for kids to be vulnerable to people with that kind of mentality?? Can you not see how that sort of system may not be a good thing? Try to explain, maybe?

[Pithlet]

81. And oh yeah. You SHOULD be allowed to see them. But who knows if you will

Seeing as there's absolutely no incentive in your kidnapville. Basically, kids, if they're unfortunate enough to have the type, will always end up with the scumbag kidnap parent who may or may not let the other parent see them. That's a real lovely system in the best interests of children everywhere. But hey. At least grandparents can't get away with it in your view. That's something.

[JI7]

63. considering the bio mother in this case has violated the law, it's probably in best interests

of the child that she is not with her.

[tammywammy]

102. What's in the best interest of this child is to have both of her parents

One of those parents has refused to obey the court ordered visitation. Lisa's only being "punished" because she's refusing to do what's in the best interest of the child.

[dsc]

121. what if this woman had taken just some random child instead of this one

should she also be able to say "well it would traumatize the child if you jailed me"? I really don't see the difference here. This woman kidnapped a child and now refuses to give her back. The fact she shares some DNA with the said child is irrelevent.

[Pithlet]

34. In other words, people who don't want their child to suffer that trauma

should obey the court ordered custody agreements. Everyone else shouldn't have their parental rights severely weakened as a solution.

[Pithlet]

15. It is in the best interest for all children that parental rights have meaning.

If holding on to a child and forming a bond trumps all, that gives a hell of an incentive for people to pull all kinds of nefarious shenanigans. Your position gives people incentive to violate visitation orders. If they know "Hey, the prevailing opinions in courts will be that my actions will form that bond that trump my ex's rights" then you've just made those battles that you abhore that much more enticing. Those orders have to mean something, not just for the parents, but for the children. And if enforcing them is hard on the children, it's the ones who violated them that are to blame. They were the selfish ones. Basically your position is to make an incentive for people to alienate children from an ex. That is so wrong.

[FreeState]

117. You do realize you are almost saying word for word the rational the anti-gay Liberty council is

using to support this law breaking woman? Seriously you are repeating talking points from a group that wants to destroy gay families. On DU none the less.

[Tailormyst]

118. You don think her religious beliefs play a part?

Those religious beliefs include with-holding the child from the other parent while indoctrinating the child that that parent is an abomination.

So yes- Her disgusting , ugly, bigoted religion has EVERYTHING to do with this case and would cause FAR more harm to the child then this custody battle EVER would.

[Starry Messenger]

17. I guess you could write to the judge and tell him why you think he's wrong.

Or we could just run our system of family court and jurisprudence on your feelings.

[rebecca_herman]

21. They SHOULD be thinking more of the child

and not the stupid selfish adults.
Why are people here so determined that a 7 year old child must lose her entire world on the whim of adults?
If the ex cared... she would not torture this poor child this way... end of story.
I would never do something so cruel to someone I loved.
Judges are not always right. To think they are always right is pretty foolish.

[JI7]

29. all of your posts in this remind me of wingnuts who call for abstinence

it just ignores the facts and reality.

just like wingnuts think teaching any kind of safe sex means promoting sex among teens, you think a parent fighting for their child is hurting the child.

you really think the lesbian parent should not do anything and just allow the other parent to keep the child from her ?

how about in cases of biological parents, a mother and a father. do you think a father should have the right to just keep a child from the mother and the mother in the "best interests" of the child just allow him to do that because anything else will cause harm to the child ?

[rebecca_herman]

36. you seem to ignore the facts and reality

This child lives with her mother. She loves her mother. She is bonded to her mother her home her friends her school. You want to take that all away from her just to satisfy some adults... who is ignoring reality here?

[Pithlet]

37. That's rich coming from someone who thinks a parent fighting for their child

is selfish. That's someone who has one warped sense of reality.

[rebecca_herman]

40. I think you are the warped one

The reason I think it selfish is because for her to have custody she must take away from this child everything she has. This child's entire life. Her home her friends her school the only parent she knows. To do that to someone you claim to love is warped and twisted and selfish.

[Pithlet]

43. The selfish one is the person who didn't care that would happen when she

took the actions she did. Guess who that person was? It's not the courts who were only doing their job.

[Starry Messenger]

31. Seven is hardly an infant.

I was making my own minor decisions at that age. In fact I'm going to guess that the judge has spent some time with the child and experts close to the child to help form his decision. Unlike you, Judge Herman.

[Thickasabrick]

27. Do you not see the harm the biological mother has done to this

child? She is the one who refused the other parent visitation rights. She is the one who aligned herself with a religious group that teaches intolerance.

The child needs to be removed from that hateful environment as she has been exposed to psychological abuse at the hands of her biological mother. I hope Ms. Miller does time.

[JI7]

30. seriously, i wonder what the poster would say if it was a biological father

involved in something like scientology keeping the child away from the biological mother. would she expect the mother to just do nothing.

[rebecca_herman]

33. Wouldn't change my view

If the child had lived with their father, and only their father, they should remain with their father, that is their home... that is what they know and love.

[JI7]

42. way to encourage assholes to kidnap kids

[Pithlet]

44. Exactly!

I mean, they might as well even be strangers! I'm sure a complete stranger could kidnap a baby and form a bond with it. And it would be so cruel to take that child away seven years later. So traumatic. How selfish would that be! Parental rights are so meaningless, you know.

[rebecca_herman]

47. So it is about relgion to you isn't it?

Figures. I wonder what the comments would be like if the child was living with an athiest parent and the one that wanted them back was a fundamentalist Christian. *rolls eyes*

Intolerence goes both ways, you know.

[JI7]

51. it matters because those are the reason for the bio mother not to allow the child to see her other

mother. it's not becuase she thinks the other mother is abusive, or about stabilityf or the child.

it's about her own anti gay bigotry due to religious fundamentalism.

[rebecca_herman]

55. ok, so what would be your view if the situation was reversed?

parent who currently has custody is an athiest. ex is a fundamentalist christian. parent with custody is keeping their child from visitation with the other parent because they feel religion is harmful and they think the child will be brainwashed. Who should get custody? is your opinion still the same, that custody should be turned over to the other parent?

[JI7]

57. yeah, if the Atheist parent denied visitation rights and other custody agreements

and the judge ruled in favor of giving the religious parent full custody, i would be all for it.

i would blame the atheist parent for breaking the law.

[Thickasabrick]

71. Not at all. It's the religion that is causing her to break the law. How do

you feel about the little Brazilian boy who is back with his dad after 5 years. He was very happy in Brazil - are you saying his dad should have just given up so as not to uproot the child?

[rebecca_herman]

85. I don't see it as the exact same thing for a couple of reasons

One, his dad had a relationship with him from day one. He raised him from birth and the child lived with him for about four or five years. Two, the child's mother had died, so he was the only surviving parent.

Had the mother not died, I am not sure what should have happened. Both parents did have a parental relationship with that child for years before they split up. Ideally, there should have been shared custody. If shared custody was not possible, then whatever home the child's best interests would be served by him living there, but because it was his best interests and not to "punish" one of the parents. I really don't know what would have been the better place for him if his mother hadn't died. I don't know how well he knew his dad - he apparently was quite comfortable with him when he headed back to the US so I don't think he was a total stranger to him.

[Pithlet]

93. You do realize the boy doesn't remember him? It is the same thing.

But given what you just said to me, I suspect something else is up, now.

[JI7]

104. i suspected it from the beginning

suddenly all the arguments about the "Best" thing for the child with "best" being who the child has known for most of their life and losing it all changes when it's a different type of couple/parent involved.

[rebecca_herman]

107. He had spent at least half his life with each parent

He lived with both parents until he was 4 or 5 years old. Since he is now around 8-9 years old, he spent at least half of his life living with his father. I don't think the father was automatically the better parent though. When his mother was still living I still kind of felt that it would be better for him to stay with her because it would be so disruptive although I felt bad for the father. But then the mother died.

I know of plenty of kids from heterosexual relationships - in fact, pretty much all the kids I know whose parents ruined their lives were heterosexual - where a parent they didn't have a bond with or want to be with forced their way into their lives and now as adults they are unable to have any kind of loving relationship with their parents because the resentment is so huge. They feel like they were treated like property and not a person whose feelings mattered. Has anyone here heard of the recent case where a young teenager went to juvenile detention rather than go to his court-ordered visitation with his father? Because being in that home was so unbearable to him? His father had moved on and had a child with someone new... but he still saw the boy as "his" and forced him to visit, however he didn't interact with him while he was there and focused his attention on his new child.

You can't make a child love you. You can't make a child want to be with you. You cannot force a parent-child bond. You can try and force a child to live with you, but that won't make the child love or respect you.

[Pithlet]

109. She kidnapped him. Tol them they were going on vacation and never came back. Nice, huh?

Fled the country. This is the kind of thing your view encourages. You want to do nothing about this kind of behavior for the good of children everywhere. So you think it would be good for kids to be yanked away like this?

[rebecca_herman]

110. you seem to have no problem yanking a kid away like that

only in your case it's worse because the person you think should be allowed to yank away like that is someone who the child has never known as a parent.

[Pithlet]

111. No. I don't support any form of kidnapping or keeping kids away from their parents illegally.

It seems you do, as long as it's done outside of a certain frame of time. That's the difference between us. This is what I'm getting for from you. It's open season on kids of unbiological parents, or kids who won't remember the parents because they'll be strangers to them. So, kidnap your or a child young enough, and keep them for long enough and you're golden if things are run your way. It's convenient that you refuse to address the concern of how that leads to open season on those kids. How that leads to those kids always ending up in the hands of the sleazy parents who have no qualms about that sort of thing, and how that's a good thing. You simply refuse to answer that for some reason.

[rebecca_herman]

113. Because the alternative is worse.

Forcing a child into a home with strangers is worse. Forcing the trauma of that kind of seperaration on an innocent child is worse. Forcing a relationship with a child who doesn't know you and doesn't want to be with you is worse. And the resentment it causes can last for life. I love my parents... and I have a pretty decent relationship with them... but it's never going to be perfect, because there was severe (non-custody related) trauma in my childhood as a result of some poor decisions they made, and I am going to have to live with the psychological problems that caused me for life. There is always going to be some resentment there. And I can't even imagine the greater level of resentment I'd have if I was this little girl and torn away from my mom like that.

you seem to be obssessed with some sense of "justice" and "crime" and rights of adults. I am more concerned with the rights of kids who don't get to choose. And sometimes what's right for the adults, and what the adults want, and what the adults might think is justice, isn't what's right for the kids. Who get no say and no voice. And it sickens me. I believe our society gives far, far too many rights to adults at the expense of the powerless children.

[Pithlet]

114. It is traumatic, but they do recover. They're parents. They don't stay strangers.

My "obession"? You're reading that into it, from some bias you may have. I'm concerned that kids don't get kidnapped. Period. You're concerned with the rights of kids. Why aren't you concerned with the rights of all kids, not just the kids who're suffering the trauma inflicted by the parents who kidnapped them or kept them from the parent? Why not other kids who have a right not to get kidnapped? You're sickened. But you're misplacing the blame. I find it funny that you're wagging your finger at me, but you're the one who wants to punish and blame innocent people, like the woman who was kept from her child (yes, her child, not a stranger) by someone else's actions. You want to call HER selfish when she's done nothing wrong. That's twisted.

If courts don't right the wrong, then that leaves OTHER kids open to be victimized. You refuse to see this. You still refuse to acknowledge this. So, when people see that nothing happens and there's no consequences, and they rip the children from their mother, or ignore the court order and block them from their father and that child suffers trauma, you don't care about that?

[Pithlet]

115. Oh, I'm also wondering

So, when are the parents of kidnapped babies and people being illegally barred from seeing their babies supposed to bow out gracefully from the fight before they're deemed selfish by you. Just wondering. How long are they allowed to keep up the fight, exactly?

[JI7]

120. still waiting for an answer to this

the poster makes no sense.all it would do is encourage kidnapping by almost anyone since more people might be willing to take in kids they didn't get legally if they can just use the argument that taking a child away from what they know is harmful.

this is why we have laws. when brought up that it was the bio mother's fault for not allowing the other mother to see the child the poster just ignores it and claims we want to punish the bio mother and hurt the child.

and i really don't think that poster has the child's best interests in mind as some other posters said, she is repeating the talking points by gay hating wingnuts.

[FreeState]

122. Shes not a stranger - quit spreading that lie please

Picture taken less than 3 years ago. They know each other - they are not strangers she is her mother.

[Rage for Order]

24. Hmmm...

Based on the title of the OP, I wonder whose side I'm supposed to choose in this custody dispute?

:dunce:

[FreeState]

112. God forbid we call a bigot a bigot - it might give people ideas! n/t

[complain jane]

35. The biological mother Lisa Miller sounds unstable

based on everything I've read, including her own words on her blog.