An ex-gay Christian woman is missing with her seven-year-old daughter after a judge ruled her former partner should be given custody.
Lisa Miller gave birth to Isabella in 2002, by artificial insemination, two years into a civil union with lesbian partner Janet Jenkins. In 2003, Miller ended the partnership, taking her child with her. She became an evangelical Christian and renounced lesbianism, refusing Jenkins visitation rights. She demanded child support payments, however.
Due to Miller’s ongoing refusals, which constituted contempt of court, a Vermont Family Court judge granted Jenkins full custody (PDF link) of Isabella in November 2009. Jenkins says she intends to allow Miller “as liberal contact as possible” with her daughter. She was to be handed over on January 1st, 2010.
Now, however, Miller and her daughter have not been seen in a month, prompting fears that the handover will not occur.
Miller has claimed that there is a “homosexual agenda” at work, and her daughter “is a pawn in their game.” She said Isabella was “saved” at the age of four and she denies hating Janet, saying she prays “for her soul and her salvation.”
In a 2008 interview with right-wing Christian website LifeSiteNews, Miller made a number of claims about Jenkins, accusing her of verbal and physical abuse towards her and neglect of the child. There were also none-too-subtle insinuations of sexual abuse, since Jenkins reportedly took a naked bath with the child, and Isabella had started “openly masturbating.”
Evidently Judge William Cohen saw nothing in the charges, since he ruled in favor of custody. But with Miller and her daughter having disappeared, will it ever happen?
The only person using Isabella as a pawn is Lisa Miller.
Fundamentalist Christianity destroys another gay family. I can’t believe these people call themselves “pro family” and then they pull crap like this.
Lying for jesus is old coat, kidnapping for jesus though, that’s a new one.
Why do adult-onset Christians think they can break the law for personal or religious reasons? Is Lisa Miller getting her support from those religious nutjobs who wrote and signed the Manhattan Declaration, advocating law-breaking to achieve religious ends?
This is pure insanity by the judge. The biological mother should always have the right to her own child, gay or straight. This seems like a clear political move by a liberal activist judge. Insane.
John C, assuming the charges of abused leveled by Miller are false (and evidently the judge thought so), it’s not as simple as giving custody to the biological mother. That was the initial ruling, but the biological mother refused to give the other parent access to the child. In this she was in contempt of court. Seems to me the main reason custody was given to Jenkins was so that both parents could have access.
John C., what exactly is an “activist judge?”
It was my understanding that Justices were trained in the Law and (by the very nature of the *name* of their post) are therefor trained to pass *judgment* on cases presented to them.
So since you are obviously more highly trained in legal matters than this particular Justice of the Court, please present to us your reasoning (backed with legal precedent) as to why the ruling was incorrect.
If thery were in a civil union then it is obvious they made some promises to each other which are legally binding. Being the “child bearer” does not afford Lisa more rights than Janet. Judges in family courts have a big task of deciding what is best for the child especially when there is a dispute over custody.
In a heterosexual situation there would be no argument that the father would have just as much a right to the child as the mother even if she was artifically inseminated. The only exception would be, of course, if it could be proved the father was a danger to the child.
A family member of mine got divorced and the mother was restricted to 90 miles of the original residence for 6 months until the divorce was finalized. This happened in Oregon. The mother was awarded the kids, but because she decided to move to Texas, she had to pay out of pocket to send the kids to their dad every summer and every other Christmas. The family judge who made this decision was hereby labeled as a “Woman Hating Judge” but the truth is he was following the law.
Divorce can be an ugly ordeal, but to blame a judge for following the law, as I believe the judge did in the case of Lisa and Janet, To call him a “liberal activist,” assuming they are used as an insult, is not understanding the law and how our judicial system works, especially our family court system.
@ John C.
The biological mother — Lisa Miller — has always had the ‘right to her own child’. She was awarded primary custody and that could have continued indefinitely.
However, what Lisa Miller has also done is completely deny the child access to the other parent for over 5 years. Janet Jenkins is a legal parent to the child, regardless of whether you recognise or agree with that fact.
What is “pure insanity” is that this situation is wholly of Lisa Miller’s making.
Miller first broke the visitation schedule in June 2004 — a date before she had even attempted to circumvent her responsibilities by starting a parallel process in Virginia. Even in spite of all her obstructive behaviour, Miller was rejected by Virginia over 3 years ago and has been in contempt of the Vermont court for over 5 years.
By her own destructive wilfulness Miller has turned a completely routine case involving separated parents into firstly a damaging circus and then deliberate disobedience of the Court and now, sadly, into a very serious offence.
Miller’s behaviour is inexcusable. The law will eventually catch up with her and I fear she will now face the risk of losing all but closely monitored contact with her child. If even that.
Miller appears to be stupid enough to be able make her own fool choices in life. She can certainly do without people like you egging her on.
John C,
Please clarify: Is this judge an activist against the law, or against your personal opinion (which has nothing to do with the law)?
If against the law, then provide legal backing, if against your personal opinion, then please explain why this judge should follow your advice over our nation’s existing legal framework.
Lisa and Isabella Miller are lessons to us all. Lisa Miller had escaped her tragic youth and was working to build healthy relationships for the future generations of her family.
Unfortunately, the gay community has been empowered by the state to act as a bucket of crabs, viciously detaining any of their number who attempts to escape.
If we continue to empower the gay community through bad legislation, they will force their alternate lifestyle on countless people such as Lisa and Isabella.
If Jenkins wants a child, she should have her own child. Stealing Lisa’s child is evil. No amount of rhetoric makes it right.
Ask any parent if they’d comply with a law that said they had to give up their child, or compel their child to spend time with someone whose values were counter to their own. Do you really think any parent would put up with this? Of course not. They wouldn’t be parents if they did.
Ms. Conley,
If Lisa Miller did not want to share custody with Ms. Jenkins, perhaps she should not have deliberately gotten pregnant and born a child during their civil union.
“If we continue to empower the gay community through bad legislation, they will force their alternate lifestyle on countless people such as Lisa and Isabella.”
Honey, i have some really bad news for oyu. Lisa “forced” her “lifestyle” on her child. she also made a public and legal agreement whic she has reneged on. It has nothing to do with the “gay community’ whatever that may be.