Uhm, maybe hiding with the child is not the best idea. Just a hunch
Is mother and martyr Lisa Miller on the lam? Yes, if more than a few mainstream news reports are to be believed.
This one from the AP:
(AP) The birth mother of a 7-year-old Virginia girl must transfer custody of the child to the woman's former lesbian partner, a Vermont judge ruled, adding that it seems the woman has "disappeared" with her daughter.
Vermont Family Court Judge William Cohen ordered Lisa Miller of Winchester, Va., to turn over daughter Isabella to Janet Jenkins of Fair Haven at 1 p.m. Friday at the Virginia home of Jenkins' parents.
But in the Dec. 22 order denying Miller's request to delay the transfer of Isabella, Cohen wrote: "It appears that Ms. Miller has ceased contact with her attorneys and disappeared with the minor child."
Birth Mom Must Give Child to Ex-Partner [AP via CBS News]
No decent person would wish to score any political points here at the expense of the young daughter's well-being. So our hope is not for an opportunity to show just how fully the far-right (Lisa is represented by the anti-gay Liberty Counsel) will skirt the law if it doesn't jibe with their narrow world views. Instead we hope that Lisa is simply undergoing a serious period of quiet self-reflection, and that a peaceful outcome will be the only thing we'll have to note come Friday.
But if major Miller backer Matt Barber wants to say something nutty, that'd be fine. Welcome, even.
Gee, what do you mean by "made to disappear," anonymous internet conservative?
***UPDATE: The 'lam' of God: Will Lisa Miller come out of hiding? [G-A-Y]
If Barber and the Liberty council had a hand in this, then they need to be arrested as co-conspirators.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Dec 29, 2009 9:21:22 PM
Liberty Council wants this story to hit mainstream media as to bash the GLBT community on Civil Unions & Marriage. Public Opinion will be harsh because VT Court has ruled custody of the child is to be taken from the Birth mother and given to the mom's former spouse. Not a nice story.
Posted by: Roger | Dec 30, 2009 12:08:25 AM
Am I the only one that didn't see this coming?
Posted by: Bearchewtoy75 | Dec 30, 2009 12:22:48 AM
Any parent that takes a child from the other for reasons that are not criminal neglect or abuse, that parent is in fact COMMITTING abuse of another kind.
Lisa Miller brought this situation into their lives and she's let it affect the child adversely.
Even a Solomonic decision wouldn't work on that woman and apparently THAT Biblical lesson is lost on her and her supporters as well.
Posted by: Regan DuCasse | Dec 30, 2009 12:55:32 AM
"...that'd be fine. Welcome, even."
You forgot "predictable".
Posted by: Bill S | Dec 30, 2009 6:51:30 AM
I disagree, Roger. Certainly some folks may try to spin it that way but there have been too many rulings against Miller. Also, the facts that they agreed to raise the child together, Jenkins was paying child support and this entire thing blew up because Miller refused to allow her to have court ordered visitation rights will come out.
I think there have been too many people (i.e. heterosexuals) caught up in a situation like this and therfore feel sympathy for Jenkins.
Posted by: a. mcewen | Dec 30, 2009 11:56:35 AM
She has had 1 year to comply with the order. She needs to be tracked down by the FBI and all of her co-conspirators, prosecuted for kidnapping, conspiracy to commit a felony and all go to jail.
Posted by: Mykelb | Dec 30, 2009 11:58:48 AM
This reminds me of something Matt Barber said in 2008:
"Little Isabella – who is both terrified by this stranger [meaning Janet Jenkins] and understandably confused by her bizarre lifestyle – has suffered tremendous emotional trauma as a result. There are even concerns about her physical safety." Link
As Matt might also say, "The irony is palpable."
Posted by: Michael R | Dec 30, 2009 3:21:37 PM
I can hardly believe I am reading this story.
There are times when civil disobedience is the only moral choice. If this mother chooses to flee the unjust judgments of this Vermont judge I support her right (and responsibility) to do so.
There is no such thing as a right to have parental custody of someone else's child. The former lover has no rights to any kind of access to this child. No judge can make it so.
This is alarming.
Posted by: jon | Dec 31, 2009 4:12:58 AM
"There is no such thing as a right to have parental custody of someone else's child."
Does your statement's scope include forbidding people from adopting children? If not, I'd challenge you to retool your statement to be a little more clear. If your statement does include forbidding adoption, I'd be curious to learn your reasons.
Posted by: GDad | Dec 31, 2009 11:08:07 AMcomments powered by Disqus