Posts Tagged ‘traditional family’
Adoptive mother must share children with former roommate and girlfriend
By Nathan A. Cherry
Martinsburg, W.V. – Below is the story of a recent court decision in Montana where, for the first time, parental rights were given to a non-parent. Not just a non-parent, a “legal stranger,” as Alliance Defense Fund legal counsel Austin Nimocks stated it. This is more than frightening; this is a shocking picture of where our judicial system is headed as they seek to purposely play culture wars in cases involving former homosexual partners.
Once again judges and courts are playing partisan political games, legislating from the bench, and ignoring obvious, common sense solutions to not-so-difficult cases.
In this particular instance is the continuing story of Lisa Miller, who is seeking complete separation from her former lesbian lover Janet Jenkins. The two were joined in a civil union in Vermont, and Miller gave birth to her daughter Isabella, before Miller left the homosexual lifestyle after becoming a Christian. Upon doing so she moved to Virginia where same-sex unions are not recognized.
But now a Virginia judge has decided he doesn’t like the laws in his state, and has decided to recognize Vermont civil unions. (Does anyone want to guess what the implications of this careless ruling will be?) And by doing so has said that Vermont has jurisdiction over the case, even though Isabella was born in Virginia where Miller has lived for several years now.
Miller will be headed back to Vermont soon for a much anticipated January 28 court date where a judge will decide who gets custody of Isabella. Quite frankly it would make absolutely no sense for anyone but the child’s biological mother to get custody. Courts have always ruled that biological parents have more rights to children, and when a child is being raised in a safe, secure, stable home with a biological parent where the child is thriving there is no cause to change such an arrangement.
Let’s hope the Vermont courts continue to uphold such a common sense idea. Because if they award custody to a non-biological person over the biological parent, where no abuse or neglect is present, they will signal that it is about political gain and not upholding the law or doing what is best in the interest of the child. And they will open a floodgate of unprecedented chaos in the court system for other non-biological persons to file for custody for seemingly no reason at all.
Ironically, Pope Benedict XVI recently told a conference of thousands of Mexicans that only an “undissolvable marriage between a man and a woman ought to be at the heart of a family,” according to a story released by AFP.
But if, as the Pope put it, “undissolvable marriage between a man and a woman” is pushed aside in favor of all sorts of other cohabitations, such as same-sex civil unions, it can be reasonably expected that the strength and stability of our society, which is drawn from the traditional family, will erode as well. And what we can expect in its place is a barrage of court battles where non-biological persons want custody of children with perfectly capable biological parents. And with activist judges already ignoring laws in favor of bench legislation, unprecedented rulings will inevitably take place.
This is what happens when we mess with the institutions that have provided structural stability for our society and culture for hundreds of years. If anyone is paying attention they will see that as we move farther from traditional marriage, family, and home, our society continues to further collapse on all other fronts. It is because these foundational institutions are intrinsically linked to every other aspect of our civilization. They are like dominos. To move one means to start a chain-reaction that will bring them all down. And when this happens, “We the people,” ceases to hold meaning.
Enjoy this post? Get more like them by subscribing to the Family Voice, the official blog of the Family Policy Council of West Virginia
Must protect child from former lover, courts.
West Virginia, January 12, 2009 (familyvoice.com) In October I brought you the story of Lisa Miller, an ex-lesbian- turned Christian, fighting to protect her daughter from her former lesbian lover Janet Jenkins. Isabella, the six year old at the center of this bitter court case told her mother that she wanted to commit suicide after visiting with Jenkins.
I continue to be appalled by the judges who order unsupervised visits with Jenkins for Isabella, despite knowing the negative emotional and psychological effects those visits have caused the child. In any other case where a child exhibits these kinds of negative effects a judge would immediately stop all unsupervised visits and begin investigation proceedings.
But, since this is an issue between two former lesbian lovers who were in a civil union, judges seem more interested in helping advance the homosexual agenda than protecting the well-being of an innocent child. And that fact alone is despicable.
Now Miller has announced that in the best interest of her child she will end all unsupervised visits with Jenkins, according to Lifesitenews.
Such a move, “which is in direct defiance of numerous court orders, may result in heavy fines, jail time, and loss of custody of her six year old child to lesbian Janet Jenkins.” But Miller reiterates that “God doesn’t want her in that situation with Janet. Isabella doesn’t want to go. She says that Janet is not her mom.”
And that is exactly the point that the homosexual community and same-sex supporters do not want to address, publicize, or talk about. The issue of same-sex marriage is not a simple one. And one of the most difficult aspects of it involves innocent children adopted, or conceived through various methods while two homosexuals are together, and what happens to them if the union dissolves.
In a heterosexual case the children generally go with the mother, though at times the father is the best fit for the kids. This is simple and easy to accomplish because both mom and dad are biological parents to the children. But not so in a homosexual civil union.
Here is a perfect example of a biological mom wanting to protect her child from a non-biological parent. It is the same as if two roommates lived together for six years, during which one roommate got pregnant and had a child, and when the now mom decides to move out the non-biological roommate demands partial custody of the child.
It’s ludicrous. No court in the world would entertain such a case. And yet that is exactly what is happening here. A non-biological person is demanding custody of a child on the grounds that she has a right via her former civil union status. And the courts are playing games with this child’s well-being just so they can try to advance the homosexual agenda. It’s disgusting.
What’s the lesson here? Don’t mess with the family. Children should be raised by their biological parents, a mom and dad, because despite what the liberals and homosexuals try and tell us, kids need a mom and dad.
Further Food for Thought: