With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Dusty - 21 Oct 2009 15:45 GMT http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=21826817
With Gay Marriage Comes Gay Divorce The Rise of Lesbian Custody Battles
By Glenn Sacks, M.A. and Ned Holstein, M.D.
It's not every day that America's conservative Christians rally around the cause of a lesbian. Yet numerous groups are providing support and expensive legal services for Lisa Miller. Miller's cause? To deny her former civil union partner Janet Jenkins any role in the life of the daughter they raised together.
Miller and Jenkins joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000 as Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins, and had a child named Isabella Miller-Jenkins together in 2002. Lisa was artificially inseminated from a sperm donor who they chose because his physical traits closely matched Janet's, who became Isabella's social mother. According to the Washington Post:
"When Isabella was born, Janet had the honor of cutting the umbilical cord ... Lisa and Janet had researched how best to bond with the baby ... [at night] 'Every two or three hours, Isabella would wake up so Lisa could nurse her,' Janet said. 'I would take Isabella from that point. I would burp her ... I would rock her. She would go back to sleep on my heartbeat' ... Janet's parents were enthralled, and embraced Isabella as their newest grandchild."
In 2004 Miller decided to leave Jenkins and move to Virginia, agreeing to a liberal parenting time schedule for Jenkins, who paid child support to Miller. Yet after Miller got to Virginia, she violated the agreement, deciding that she wanted sole custody of Isabella and excluding Jenkins from the child's life. The Liberty Counsel, a close partner of the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, has spearheaded Miller's legal case.
Jenkins, who has helped care for children at day care centers in two states, treasures pictures she has of Isabella helping her in their garden, picking through her purse and playing with wooden trains. "These are hard to look at ... we were happy," she says. She remembers how Isabella would say "Uppy" when she wanted Janet to pick her up.
Miller, who became a Christian and renounced lesbianism after leaving Jenkins, even pushed aside Jenkins' parents, who Isabella adores and who live near Miller. Janet's dad Bucky, a retired firefighter who's been married to his wife Ruth for over 50 years, says, "The loser in the whole thing, of course, was the baby."
Vermont judges have seen the dispute Jenkins' way throughout the case. On Aug. 25 a Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on Miller if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation.
Miller could have been incarcerated by the court but Jenkins -- showing Miller a kindness both unreciprocated and unmerited -- told the court she didn't want Miller jailed. What she wants is to see her daughter. Afterwards, Miller declared that she's going to continue her legal battle to keep Isabella away from Jenkins "because that's what a Christian is supposed to do."
Miller is, of course, entitled to choose her own sexuality and religion. But she chose to have a child with Jenkins and shouldn't be able to obliterate this because it doesn't fit in with her new beliefs. And however one feels about gay marriage, it is enormously damaging to children to have one of the two people they love the most in the world -- a parent -- ripped out of their lives. The saddest part is that children usually blame themselves, asking, "What did I do to make mom not want to be with me anymore?"
Lesbian custody battles are now becoming routine, and dozens of them have been the subject of hotly contested cases in recent years. Some of the biological mothers are so determined to drive the social mothers out of their children's lives that they even invoke laws which limit gays' parental rights as a way to win their cases.
LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activists believe courts haven't adequately protected the rights of lesbian social mothers because of the tenuous legal status of gay marriages and relationships, and they're partly correct. But much of the problem lies in the way courts treat noncustodial parents, regardless of sexual orientation.
Most of Miller's tactics are well known to noncustodial fathers. According to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington, D.C.-based children's advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have their access to their noncustodial parents interfered with or blocked by custodial parents.
Miller moved far way from Jenkins as a way to separate Isabella from her -- a common tactic in custody cases. Miller pushed Isabella's grandparents out of their lives -- at Fathers & Families we receive thousands of anguished letters from distraught grandparents who were excluded from their grandchildren's lives after their sons got divorced.
Miller made unsupported claims of abuse by Jenkins. Canadian jurist Bruce Pugsley recently wrote in an opinion that it's "commonplace" for the system to be manipulated by estranged spouses claiming abuse, "no matter how remote the assault may be in time or, indeed, how trivial the contact." Many legal experts have voiced similar concerns.
Children, heterosexual noncustodial parents and lesbian social mothers like Jenkins all need the same thing -- strong legal protections for parent-child bonds. This begins with a rebuttable presumption of shared custody after a divorce or separation.
Under this presumption, as long as both parents are fit, they will both have the right to share equally in raising their children. These presumptions do exist in some states, but they are generally weak and too easily evaded.
Moreover, courts need to enforce their own visitation orders, instead of allowing custodial parents to flout orders year after year with little or no consequence. When abuse charges are made, they need to be investigated seriously and quickly, and there need to be consequences for false accusations. Judges fighting overcrowded court calendars instead tend to "err on the side of caution" by upholding abuse claims. False accusers rarely suffer any penalty, while children must bear the loss of a parent.
Jenkins echoes the pain of millions of non-custodial parents when she describes what it has been like losing little Isabella:
"There is a part of me missing. I feel like my heart has been ripped out beating."
Glenn Sacks, M.A., is executive director of Fathers & Families. His columns have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. Ned Holstein, M.D., is the organization's chairman of the board. Their Web site is http://FathersandFamilies.org
For more MSN Lifestyle Articles about Custody Battles, click here.
Chris - 21 Oct 2009 23:39 GMT > http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=21826817 > [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > > For more MSN Lifestyle Articles about Custody Battles, click here. "Vermont court found Miller in contempt, imposing a fine on Miller if she continues to violate Jenkins' court-ordered visitation."
Uhuh, contempt with no penalty. Now THAT sure is effective. When was the last time you saw the threat of fine, let alone actual imposition of such, when a MAN is the one being denied visitation? "Family" court discrimination is so glaring even sunglasses don't help...............
Bob W - 22 Oct 2009 02:40 GMT >> http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=21826817 >> [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > when a MAN is the one being denied visitation? "Family" court > discrimination is so glaring even sunglasses don't help............... My "fines" for contempt were usually paying attorney fees that were inflated far above the actual legal costs to have the contempt hearing. I paid the equivalent of one year's legal bills for my ex for matters totally unrelated to the contempt charge. Once I got a 30 day jail sentence, but it was suspended in lieu of two year's probation. The family law system does treat fathers differently.
BTW - A couple of years ago I contacted my state senator expressing my belief any new laws authorizing gay marriage would also require new laws to cover gay divorce. He told me there would be no need for gay divorce laws. It was his opinion heterosexual divorce laws would work just fine for gay divorces. I still doubt he was right.
Chris - 23 Oct 2009 05:31 GMT >>> http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=21826817 >>> [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] > laws. It was his opinion heterosexual divorce laws would work just fine > for gay divorces. I still doubt he was right. My question is how can the law that the man pays the woman apply when there is NO man in a lesbian "divorce"? Or for that matter, no woman when two men "divorce" each other?
Bob W - 23 Oct 2009 06:12 GMT >>>> http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=21826817 >>>> [quoted text clipped - 151 lines] > there is NO man in a lesbian "divorce"? Or for that matter, no woman when > two men "divorce" each other? Forget the gender bias. The bigger questions are should a bio-mom get CS from a non-bio mom and should a non-bio dad get CS from the bio-dad. Or should the custody decisions be made in favor of the best interest of the children like the law supposedly requires? IOW - Does biology play a role in custody and CS decisions or does the best interests of the children in the parenting relationships over-ride those decisions? If the best interest standard of parenting is applied to gay divorces should the best interest standard also apply to heterosexual divorces?
The difficulty of double standards of gender role assumptions become major decisions for courts to decide.
Chris - 23 Oct 2009 20:58 GMT >>>>> http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-documentid=21826817 >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 165 lines] > The difficulty of double standards of gender role assumptions become major > decisions for courts to decide. They have but ONE standard: man pays woman.
Big D - 25 Oct 2009 18:36 GMT > >>>http://lifestyle.msn.com/your-life/bigger-picture/article.aspx?cp-doc... > [quoted text clipped - 156 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe it is. I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that particular question when you are supposed to know the difference between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents) and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are treated differently). You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in same sex divorce.
Ted - 25 Oct 2009 22:29 GMT > Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible > for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are > treated differently). "Only women are custodial parents and men are treated differently". These are your words. To what extent do you believe that?
> You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into > effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your > agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in > same sex divorce. Big D - 25 Oct 2009 23:42 GMT > > Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible > > for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text -
> "Only women are custodial parents and men are > treated differently". These are your words. To what > extent do you believe that? Since when are only women custodial parents? Are you serious? You do realize that your statement is not a fact in the least, don't you? I don't think the single fathers out there that are custodial parents would appreciate your comment. I'd like to see proof that ONLY women are custodial parents. Please point me to the site where you got your information from. Somewhere there is a site that shows women being custodial parents 100% and men at 0%; otherwise, your statement is just your opinion since it lacks fact to back it up.
Ted - 26 Oct 2009 01:58 GMT > > > Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible > > > for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > You do realize that your statement is not a fact in the least, don't > you? You seem a bit confused. I haven't made any statement.
> I don't think the single fathers out there that are custodial parents > would appreciate your comment. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 100% and men at 0%; otherwise, your statement is just your opinion > since it lacks fact to back it up. Bob W - 26 Oct 2009 03:51 GMT On Oct 25, 5:29 pm, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 6:36 am, Big D <brendelpittb...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text -
> "Only women are custodial parents and men are > treated differently". These are your words. To what > extent do you believe that? Since when are only women custodial parents? Are you serious? You do realize that your statement is not a fact in the least, don't you? I don't think the single fathers out there that are custodial parents would appreciate your comment. I'd like to see proof that ONLY women are custodial parents. Please point me to the site where you got your information from. Somewhere there is a site that shows women being custodial parents 100% and men at 0%; otherwise, your statement is just your opinion since it lacks fact to back it up.
======
Here's the point being missed. When a heterosexual couple divorces the bio-mom gets preference for custody the vast majority of the time. And when a homosexual couple divorces the bio-mom gets preferential treatment for custody the vast majority of the time. The legal standard is supposed to be the best interest of the children. Yet both heterosexual and homosexual divorce proceedings seem to ignore the best interest standard and go with the bio-mom standard.
My point was the bias towards bio-mom custody gets exposed as the judicial preference when both types of sexual orientation parents divorce. Both of those outcomes are in conflict with the best interest custody standard written into the custody laws. The non-bio parent loses custody in both cases which means the bio-mom is getting preference regardless of the parenting abilities of the other parent that could benefit the children.
Some smart lawyer will figure out how to make the legal arguments to expose the obvious discrepancies between the law as written and the law as applied. And I think the homosexual custody divorce outcomes will be the opening to do so.
Chris - 26 Oct 2009 16:15 GMT > On Oct 25, 5:29 pm, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 26, 6:36 am, Big D <brendelpittb...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > applied. And I think the homosexual custody divorce outcomes will be the > opening to do so. Don't hold your breath. They're simply going to say the best interest of the child is to be with the mother because the mother is the best parent.
Bob W - 26 Oct 2009 17:32 GMT >> On Oct 25, 5:29 pm, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Oct 26, 6:36 am, Big D <brendelpittb...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> You do realize that your statement is not a fact in the least, don't >> you?
>> I don't think the single fathers out there that are custodial parents >> would appreciate your comment. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Don't hold your breath. They're simply going to say the best interest of > the child is to be with the mother because the mother is the best parent. So which parent is the "mother" when both domestic partner parents are gay men or when neither of the lesbian women are the bio-mom?
If the courts are able to apply the best interest of the children standard in those scenarios, then the courts should not be allowed to use some different custody standard, like bio-mom preference, just because of the parents have a different sexual orientation. I think there will be an opening to argue reverse discrimination based on how the sexual orientation of heterosexual parents are treated differently than homosexual parents.
Chris - 26 Oct 2009 21:44 GMT >>> On Oct 25, 5:29 pm, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Oct 26, 6:36 am, Big D <brendelpittb...@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > So which parent is the "mother" when both domestic partner parents are gay > men or when neither of the lesbian women are the bio-mom? Pretty remote already that even one man has custody, let alone TWO men. And probably just as rare that NEITHER lesbian woman would be the bio-mom. But in the unlikely event such cases arise, any influence on the system as a whole will be nil. It's anybody's guess how "family" court will behave since it already operates without a rudder.
> If the courts are able to apply the best interest of the children standard > in those scenarios, then the courts should not be allowed to use some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > orientation of heterosexual parents are treated differently than > homosexual parents. Like I said, don't hold your breath. You're assuming that reason will be part of the equation. Just look at their DNA argument.
Big D - 03 Nov 2009 21:16 GMT > On Oct 25, 5:29 pm, Ted <ted.8...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > And I think the homosexual custody divorce outcomes will be the opening to > do so. Bob, I think the first case of this kind of civil proceeding will set the precedent of the following cases. Until the time comes when a same sex couple can marry legally and then divorce, we will be able to assume the outcomes of any cases pertaining to same sex couples in a fair manner.
Big D - 03 Nov 2009 21:13 GMT > > Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible > > for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > agenda. The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in > > same sex divorce. Ted, your statement to me was as follows:
> "Only women are custodial parents and men are > treated differently". These are your words. To what > extent do you believe that? I know they are NOT my words, so they MUST be your words, since they never came from my keyboard. Of course there is always the chance that you have made yourself believe I said that, and then you'd be hard pressed to prove it, since I NEVER SAID THAT. Are you just trying to make yourself look good by telling falsehoods on me, or are you that deluded that you have talked yourself into believing that I made that statement? You even went as far as to respond to me this trife sh.t:
>You seem a bit confused. I haven't made any statement. but clearly you did, because those are YOUR words and NOT MY words. Why would you do something like that and prove yourself a liar?
Once again, I ask for the proof of the statement that YOU made to me concerning custodial parents and the gender of ALL custodial parents being female. If you are unable to do so, just admit to that, but it does make you look like a giant w.nker to sit there and lie so boldly about what you said, and then try to tell me that I said it, when we BOTH know those are your words.
Let me know when you get that proof there, buddy. Don't worry, I won't hod my breath;)
Ted - 03 Nov 2009 22:24 GMT > > > Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible > > > for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > I know they are NOT my words, so they MUST be your words, since they > never came from my keyboard. According to the attribution that appears above, someone called Big D <brendelpittb...@gmail.com> typed those words on Oct 26, 6:36 am. Isn't that you?
> Of course there is always the chance that > you have made yourself believe I said that, and then you'd be hard > pressed to prove it, since I NEVER SAID THAT. To repeat the attribution, as it appears above:
> > > Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible > > > for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are > > > treated differently). Are you saying you didn't type the section above?
> Are you just trying to make yourself look good by telling falsehoods > on me, or are you that deluded that you have talked yourself into > believing that I made that statement? It looks to me like you made that statement.
> You even went as far as to respond to me this trife sh.t:>You seem a bit confused. I haven't made any statement. > > but clearly you did, No, I'm not making any statement. I'm asking you to what extent you agree with: "only women are custodial parents and men are treated differently" which somebody called Big D <brendelpittb...@gmail.com> appears to have typed at 6:36 am on Oct 26.
>because those are YOUR words No, I didn't type them.
> and NOT MY words. But they appear to have been typed by you. How strange.
> Why would you do something like that and prove yourself a liar? > > Once again, I ask for the proof of the statement that YOU made to me > concerning custodial parents and the gender of ALL custodial parents > being female. You do seem to be confused.
> If you are unable to do so, just admit to that, but it does make you > look like a giant w.nker to sit there and lie so boldly about what you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Let me know when you get that proof there, buddy. Don't worry, I won't > hod my breath;) Big D - 16 Nov 2009 00:55 GMT > > > > Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible > > > > for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > - Show quoted text - My bad, I didn't recognize my words when you took them out of context, partly because they were not my words, just snippets of the complete statement, which was:
Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that particular question when you are supposed to know the difference between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents) and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are treated differently).
I guess you don't know that once you take something out of context and reword it, or omit certain key elements, it stops being the other person's statement-as you can see, and becomes the distorters statement. Well, no that you know that, try not to let it happen again.
Just so I am being clear, this was my statement: Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that particular question when you are supposed to know the difference between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents) and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are treated differently).
And this is your statement (It stopped belonging to me once you changed context and omited key phrases):
"Only women are custodial parents and men are treated differently". These are your words. To what extent do you believe that?
So, it is your statement now. That is actually not even a statement anymore, just random words you picked out of the entire statement.
Ted - 16 Nov 2009 01:25 GMT > > > > > Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible > > > > > for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > So, it is your statement now. That is actually not even a statement > anymore, just random words you picked out of the entire statement. Hmmm... but to what extent do you believe that "only women are custodial parents and men are treated differently"? I am interested in "extent". A majority? An overwhelming majority? Equal? What?
Chris - 26 Oct 2009 03:37 GMT On Oct 23, 12:31 am, "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> "Bob W" <robe...@teleport.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 191 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Simple! The law requires that the NON-custodial parent be responsible for child support to be paid to the custodial parent. The law is not gender specific as most people frequenting this group seem to believe it is.
*************
Untrue. The woman, by default, is automatically the recipient of the free cash. The burden of trying to reverse this rests with the man. Think of it like a new computer. When you take it out of the box, it comes with default settings. It is up to the user to change such settings. Your argument is akin to saying there is no debtors' prison; that it is simply incarceration for "contempt of court". Well guess what, a rose by any other name still smells like a ROSE.
**************
I bet the gay and lesbian people getting divorced will have no problem with the law, but may have issues when deciding who the custodial parent will be. Still, I have to wonder why you even asked that particular question when you are supposed to know the difference between fact (whis pertains to custodial and non-custodial parents) and fiction/opinion (only women are custodial parents and men are treated differently).
************
I asked it because I was seeking a legitimate answer, that's why.
*****************
You do realize that if this gay marriage and divorce thing comes into effect, you will have to completely revamp your ideas to suit your agenda.
***********
No I won't.
************
The stuff so far will not fly once same sex marriage ends in same sex divorce.
|
|
|