Articles like this one:

[Wolf's Woman]

you'll find it here:

http://www.equalityvirginia.org/site/pp.asp?c=dfIIITMIG&b=262607


FAQ: MILLER-JENKINS v. MILLER-JENKINS

Q. What is the name of the case?



A. The full name of the case is Janet Miller-Jenkins v. Lisa
Miller-Jenkins. The case is pending in the Court of Appeals of
Virginia and is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
Virginia.

On December 8, 2004, attorneys for Janet Miller-Jenkins, including
Joseph R. Price, the Board Chair of Equality Virginia and the Equality
Virginia Education Fund and Jay Squires, representing the Equality
Virginia Education Fund, filed an opening brief in the appeal. They
are joined by co-counsel Greg Nevins, Esq., of Lambda Legal Defense
and Education Fund, Inc and Rebecca Glenberg, Esq., of the ACLU of
Virginia. Amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs were filed in
support of Janet’s appeal by Virginia Poverty Law Center, the Virginia
National Organization of Women, the Virginia Chapter of the National
Association of Social Workers, the Virginia Organizing Project, Inc.
and the Virginia Women Attorneys Association, all of whom support
Janet’s position.

After a brief is filed by attorneys for Lisa Miller-Jenkins, and Janet
files a Reply brief, a panel of judges from the Court of Appeals will
hear oral arguments and then will issue a decision. A decision is
expected by mid-2005.

Q: Who are the parties to the case?

A: Janet Miller-Jenkins and Lisa Miller-Jenkins were partners
in a committed, openly lesbian relationship from 1998 to September,
2003. From 1998 to 2002, they lived together in Hamilton, Virginia, a
small town approximately fifty miles northwest of Washington, DC. On
December 19, 2000, Janet and Lisa traveled to Vermont to enter into a
civil union. Since July 1, 2000, Vermont has permitted same-sex
couples to enter into civil unions, which grant the couples under
Vermont law the same privileges and responsibilities of traditional
marriage. Since the Vermont civil union law took effect, thousands of
couples from out-of-state have chosen to travel to Vermont to
solemnize their unions and to make commitments which have the full
force of law.

Janet and Lisa returned to their home in Virginia, where they chose to
bring a child into their relationship through artificial insemination.
They chose for Lisa to carry the child, and worked together to select
a donor who would share Janet’s physical characteristics. On April
16, 2002, their child, a healthy girl, was born.

In July 2002, Janet, Lisa and their daughter moved to Fair Haven,
Vermont because Janet and Lisa believed that Virginia was an
unwelcoming state for their family. They established legal residence
in Vermont and lived together there until September, 2003, when Janet
and Lisa ended their relationship.

In September 2003, Lisa left Vermont with their daughter and returned
to Virginia. Janet remained in Vermont, and remains there today where
she owns a home and operates a successful business. In November,
2003, Lisa returned to Vermont and began a legal proceeding in the
Vermont Family court to dissolve her civil union with Janet. Like a
divorce proceeding, this lawsuit asked the court to end the legal
relationship between Lisa and Janet, to award Lisa custody of their
child, who Lisa described as a biological or adoptive child of their
union, and to order Janet to pay child support.

On June 17, 2004, the Vermont Family Court entered an order which
awarded Janet visitation rights with the couple’s daughter in Vermont
and Virginia. Lisa was unhappy with this order, and on July 1,
2004—the day the Affirmation of Marriage Act took effect—she filed a
proceeding in Frederick County Circuit Court in Virginia (the
“Virginia Court”), asking the Virginia Court to redecide the case and
find that Lisa was the sole parent of the couple’s daughter. Lisa
also asked the Virginia court to deny Janet any parental rights,
including the right to visitation with her daughter.

Q. Why is it significant that Lisa filed her Virginia
proceeding on July 1, 2004?

A. On July 1, 2004, the Virginia Affirmation of Marriage Act
became law. That law states that Virginia is prohibited from
recognizing out-of-state civil unions. Unhappy with the ruling of the
Vermont court, Lisa filed in Virginia on July 1 because she hoped that
a Virginia judge would use the Affirmation of Marriage Act to strip
Janet’s parental rights.

Q. What is the legal controversy?

A. Janet and Lisa are represented by attorneys in both the
ongoing Vermont Family Court proceeding and the Virginia Circuit Court
proceeding. In Vermont, Janet asserts that she has parental rights to
their child, which arise from the fact that their daughter was born
into the couple’s civil union. Janet hopes to remain an involved
parent with her daughter, and to share equally with Lisa in raising
her daughter. On November 17, 2004, the Vermont Court ruled that
Janet has all the legal rights any parent would have to a child born
into a marriage. On September 2, 2004, the Vermont Family Court also
found Lisa to be in contempt of court because Lisa refuses to comply
with the Vermont Court’s orders.

In Virginia, Janet is challenging the right of the Virginia court to
hear—or exercise jurisdiction over—the case. Under the laws of
Virginia, Vermont and the United States, once a court in one state has
taken jurisdiction over a child custody case, no other courts in any
state can subsequently also take jurisdiction over the case. Instead
the other courts must defer to the first court to exercise
jurisdiction and must enforce the orders of the first court. Lisa
started the Vermont proceeding, and that case is still ongoing. Then,
more than 7 months later, unhappy with the Vermont court, she filed a
case in Virginia in an attempt to use the Affirmation of Marriage Act
to get a different result. This is called “forum shopping” and it is
improper under Virginia and federal law.

Q. What are the laws in question?

A. Two laws are in question: Parental Kidnapping Prevention
Act (“PKPA”), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A, and Virginia’s Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), Va. Code Ann. §
20-146.1 et seq Both laws are designed to prevent what’s called
“forum shopping” in child custody cases. Before these laws were
passed, it was common for people unhappy with a court ruling in a
custody case to file a claim in another state where they thought the
laws were more favorable. This “forum shopping” created tremendous
problems with conflicting court orders, and encouraged people to
uproot children and move to states where they thought they would do
better in court.

In the Miller-Jenkins case, Lisa began the custody proceedings in
Vermont. Unhappy with the result, she filed another claim in Virginia
on the day that the Affirmation of Marriage Act became law. Through
her lawyers, Lisa argues that the Affirmation of Marriage Act should
be used to deny Janet parental rights.

The federal government and each state have passed laws to prohibit
this practice. Under the law, the court in the second state, here
Virginia, is required not to take jurisdiction and must enforce the
orders of the first court, here Vermont, exercising jurisdiction. It
doesn’t matter that the laws of the second state might produce a
different decision on custody.

Q. What happened in the Virginia Court?

A. In August, 2004, Judge Prosser of the Frederick County,
Virginia Circuit Court ruled against Janet and said that his court
could assume jurisdiction of the custody and visitation case. He
ruled that the Affirmation of Marriage Act was more powerful than the
Virginia, Vermont and federal laws, all of which prohibited him from
hearing the case. The Virginia judge decided that the General
Assembly, in passing the Affirmation of Marriage Act, intended that
law to overrule child custody laws that have been in place nationwide
for more than twenty years.

On December 8, 2004, Janet’s Virginia attorneys, including the
Equality Virginia Education Fund (and lead Attorney Joseph Price and
EVEF attorney Jay Squires) filed an appeal brief of Judge Prosser’s
decision with the Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Q. What is at stake in the appeal?

A. This case—the first of its kind—tests whether a state like
Virginia that refuses to recognize civil unions or gay marriage, can
ignore the judgment, orders or decrees of a court from a state, like
Vermont, that has recognized civil unions or gay marriage for its
citizens.

Janet’s appeal asks the Court of Appeals of Virginia to overturn Judge
Prosser’s decision because it violates long-established laws in
Virginia, Vermont and nationwide which prohibit forum shopping in
child custody cases. The appeal raises several legal reasons why
Judge Prosser was wrong, but an important argument challenges Judge
Prosser’s reliance on the Affirmation of Marriage Act. Janet’s appeal
argues that the Affirmation of Marriage Act cannot be used to overturn
child custody laws that have been in place for decades. Janet
position is that the Affirmation of Marriage Act and its prohibition
against recognizing civil unions are irrelevant. Lisa filed her
custody case in Vermont first, and Janet argues that the law plainly
states that Virginia courts cannot hear the case.

Janet asks the Court of Appeals of Virginia to overturn Judge Prosser
and to require him to recognize and enforce the orders of the Vermont
Family Court giving Janet visitation rights with her daughter.

Q. Why is the Equality Virginia Education Fund involved in
this case?

A. Janet requested the Equality Virginia Education Fund to
become involved in this case because EVEF has led the battle against
the Virginia Affirmation of Marriage Act. The decision Janet is
challenging threatens not only the orderly consideration of child
custody disputes, but gay and lesbian Virginians from every walk of
life. If it is upheld, Judge Prosser’s decision means that Virginia
courts can disregard established Virginia laws, the laws of other
states and the laws of the United States to discriminate against gays
and lesbians. Judge Prosser relied nearly exclusively on the
Affirmation of Marriage Act to support his decision. If Janet and
Lisa were a heterosexual couple, Judge Prosser could not have used the
Affirmation of Marriage Act to improperly assume jurisdiction in the
case.

EVEF believes that this case is the first important opportunity to
challenge the Affirmation of Marriage Act. In some ways, the legal
issues are technical, but the principle is critically important. EVEF
believes strongly that Virginia courts cannot use the Affirmation of
Marriage Act to make gays and lesbians second-class citizens who are
denied the benefit of long-established laws and legal procedures.
Victory in this case will be one blow against the Affirmation of
Marriage Act and an important beginning to ultimately doing away with
it entirely.

Please Support These Equality Virginia Sponsors

Pence Auto Group

[Chilly Willy]

Post by Wolf's Woman
http://www.equalityvirginia.org/site/pp.asp?c=dfIIITMIG&b=262607
FAQ: MILLER-JENKINS v. MILLER-JENKINS
Q. What is the name of the case?
A. The full name of the case is Janet Miller-Jenkins v. Lisa
Miller-Jenkins. The case is pending in the Court of Appeals of
Virginia and is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
Virginia.
On December 8, 2004, attorneys for Janet Miller-Jenkins, including
Joseph R. Price, the Board Chair of Equality Virginia and the Equality
Virginia Education Fund and Jay Squires, representing the Equality
Virginia Education Fund, filed an opening brief in the appeal. They
are joined by co-counsel Greg Nevins, Esq., of Lambda Legal Defense
and Education Fund, Inc and Rebecca Glenberg, Esq., of the ACLU of
Virginia. Amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs were filed in
support of Janet’s appeal by Virginia Poverty Law Center, the Virginia
National Organization of Women, the Virginia Chapter of the National
Association of Social Workers, the Virginia Organizing Project, Inc.
and the Virginia Women Attorneys Association, all of whom support
Janet’s position.
After a brief is filed by attorneys for Lisa Miller-Jenkins, and Janet
files a Reply brief, a panel of judges from the Court of Appeals will
hear oral arguments and then will issue a decision. A decision is
expected by mid-2005.
Q: Who are the parties to the case?
A: Janet Miller-Jenkins and Lisa Miller-Jenkins were partners
in a committed, openly lesbian relationship from 1998 to September,
2003. From 1998 to 2002, they lived together in Hamilton, Virginia, a
small town approximately fifty miles northwest of Washington, DC. On
December 19, 2000, Janet and Lisa traveled to Vermont to enter into a
civil union. Since July 1, 2000, Vermont has permitted same-sex
couples to enter into civil unions, which grant the couples under
Vermont law the same privileges and responsibilities of traditional
marriage. Since the Vermont civil union law took effect, thousands of
couples from out-of-state have chosen to travel to Vermont to
solemnize their unions and to make commitments which have the full
force of law.
Janet and Lisa returned to their home in Virginia, where they chose to
bring a child into their relationship through artificial insemination.
They chose for Lisa to carry the child, and worked together to select
a donor who would share Janet’s physical characteristics. On April
16, 2002, their child, a healthy girl, was born.
In July 2002, Janet, Lisa and their daughter moved to Fair Haven,
Vermont because Janet and Lisa believed that Virginia was an
unwelcoming state for their family. They established legal residence
in Vermont and lived together there until September, 2003, when Janet
and Lisa ended their relationship.
In September 2003, Lisa left Vermont with their daughter and returned
to Virginia. Janet remained in Vermont, and remains there today where
she owns a home and operates a successful business. In November,
2003, Lisa returned to Vermont and began a legal proceeding in the
Vermont Family court to dissolve her civil union with Janet. Like a
divorce proceeding, this lawsuit asked the court to end the legal
relationship between Lisa and Janet, to award Lisa custody of their
child, who Lisa described as a biological or adoptive child of their
union, and to order Janet to pay child support.
On June 17, 2004, the Vermont Family Court entered an order which
awarded Janet visitation rights with the couple’s daughter in Vermont
and Virginia. Lisa was unhappy with this order, and on July 1,
2004—the day the Affirmation of Marriage Act took effect—she filed a
proceeding in Frederick County Circuit Court in Virginia (the
“Virginia Court”), asking the Virginia Court to redecide the case and
find that Lisa was the sole parent of the couple’s daughter. Lisa
also asked the Virginia court to deny Janet any parental rights,
including the right to visitation with her daughter.
Q. Why is it significant that Lisa filed her Virginia
proceeding on July 1, 2004?
A. On July 1, 2004, the Virginia Affirmation of Marriage Act
became law. That law states that Virginia is prohibited from
recognizing out-of-state civil unions. Unhappy with the ruling of the
Vermont court, Lisa filed in Virginia on July 1 because she hoped that
a Virginia judge would use the Affirmation of Marriage Act to strip
Janet’s parental rights.
Q. What is the legal controversy?
A. Janet and Lisa are represented by attorneys in both the
ongoing Vermont Family Court proceeding and the Virginia Circuit Court
proceeding. In Vermont, Janet asserts that she has parental rights to
their child, which arise from the fact that their daughter was born
into the couple’s civil union. Janet hopes to remain an involved
parent with her daughter, and to share equally with Lisa in raising
her daughter. On November 17, 2004, the Vermont Court ruled that
Janet has all the legal rights any parent would have to a child born
into a marriage. On September 2, 2004, the Vermont Family Court also
found Lisa to be in contempt of court because Lisa refuses to comply
with the Vermont Court’s orders.
In Virginia, Janet is challenging the right of the Virginia court to
hear—or exercise jurisdiction over—the case. Under the laws of
Virginia, Vermont and the United States, once a court in one state has
taken jurisdiction over a child custody case, no other courts in any
state can subsequently also take jurisdiction over the case. Instead
the other courts must defer to the first court to exercise
jurisdiction and must enforce the orders of the first court. Lisa
started the Vermont proceeding, and that case is still ongoing. Then,
more than 7 months later, unhappy with the Vermont court, she filed a
case in Virginia in an attempt to use the Affirmation of Marriage Act
to get a different result. This is called “forum shopping” and it is
improper under Virginia and federal law.
Q. What are the laws in question?
A. Two laws are in question: Parental Kidnapping Prevention
Act (“PKPA”), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A, and Virginia’s Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), Va. Code Ann. §
20-146.1 et seq Both laws are designed to prevent what’s called
“forum shopping” in child custody cases. Before these laws were
passed, it was common for people unhappy with a court ruling in a
custody case to file a claim in another state where they thought the
laws were more favorable. This “forum shopping” created tremendous
problems with conflicting court orders, and encouraged people to
uproot children and move to states where they thought they would do
better in court.
In the Miller-Jenkins case, Lisa began the custody proceedings in
Vermont. Unhappy with the result, she filed another claim in Virginia
on the day that the Affirmation of Marriage Act became law. Through
her lawyers, Lisa argues that the Affirmation of Marriage Act should
be used to deny Janet parental rights.
The federal government and each state have passed laws to prohibit
this practice. Under the law, the court in the second state, here
Virginia, is required not to take jurisdiction and must enforce the
orders of the first court, here Vermont, exercising jurisdiction. It
doesn’t matter that the laws of the second state might produce a
different decision on custody.
Q. What happened in the Virginia Court?
A. In August, 2004, Judge Prosser of the Frederick County,
Virginia Circuit Court ruled against Janet and said that his court
could assume jurisdiction of the custody and visitation case. He
ruled that the Affirmation of Marriage Act was more powerful than the
Virginia, Vermont and federal laws, all of which prohibited him from
hearing the case. The Virginia judge decided that the General
Assembly, in passing the Affirmation of Marriage Act, intended that
law to overrule child custody laws that have been in place nationwide
for more than twenty years.
On December 8, 2004, Janet’s Virginia attorneys, including the
Equality Virginia Education Fund (and lead Attorney Joseph Price and
EVEF attorney Jay Squires) filed an appeal brief of Judge Prosser’s
decision with the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Q. What is at stake in the appeal?
A. This case—the first of its kind—tests whether a state like
Virginia that refuses to recognize civil unions or gay marriage, can
ignore the judgment, orders or decrees of a court from a state, like
Vermont, that has recognized civil unions or gay marriage for its
citizens.
Janet’s appeal asks the Court of Appeals of Virginia to overturn Judge
Prosser’s decision because it violates long-established laws in
Virginia, Vermont and nationwide which prohibit forum shopping in
child custody cases. The appeal raises several legal reasons why
Judge Prosser was wrong, but an important argument challenges Judge
Prosser’s reliance on the Affirmation of Marriage Act. Janet’s appeal
argues that the Affirmation of Marriage Act cannot be used to overturn
child custody laws that have been in place for decades. Janet
position is that the Affirmation of Marriage Act and its prohibition
against recognizing civil unions are irrelevant. Lisa filed her
custody case in Vermont first, and Janet argues that the law plainly
states that Virginia courts cannot hear the case.
Janet asks the Court of Appeals of Virginia to overturn Judge Prosser
and to require him to recognize and enforce the orders of the Vermont
Family Court giving Janet visitation rights with her daughter.
Q. Why is the Equality Virginia Education Fund involved in
this case?
A. Janet requested the Equality Virginia Education Fund to
become involved in this case because EVEF has led the battle against
the Virginia Affirmation of Marriage Act. The decision Janet is
challenging threatens not only the orderly consideration of child
custody disputes, but gay and lesbian Virginians from every walk of
life. If it is upheld, Judge Prosser’s decision means that Virginia
courts can disregard established Virginia laws, the laws of other
states and the laws of the United States to discriminate against gays
and lesbians. Judge Prosser relied nearly exclusively on the
Affirmation of Marriage Act to support his decision. If Janet and
Lisa were a heterosexual couple, Judge Prosser could not have used the
Affirmation of Marriage Act to improperly assume jurisdiction in the
case.
EVEF believes that this case is the first important opportunity to
challenge the Affirmation of Marriage Act. In some ways, the legal
issues are technical, but the principle is critically important. EVEF
believes strongly that Virginia courts cannot use the Affirmation of
Marriage Act to make gays and lesbians second-class citizens who are
denied the benefit of long-established laws and legal procedures.
Victory in this case will be one blow against the Affirmation of
Marriage Act and an important beginning to ultimately doing away with
it entirely.
Please Support These Equality Virginia Sponsors
Pence Auto Group

I'm sorry but this took only so long for me to figure out that this
entire pile of crap is based on the same type of BS that is the reason
I am not, nor have ever been married or have wanted to be married.

Two people made a decision to bond and from that bonding a decision
was made to parent a child. This is not something you do on a whim
people it's something you DO! My next-door neighbors are jewish, from
back-east and scream at each other all the fucking time. But they are
*bonded*! They made that decision understanding perfectly well that
they agree to disagree at times and dispite all that they made a
conscious decision to *bond*. From that bond they have a child. I talk
to her on occasion, know that she likes hockey and is a little "butch"
but WTF... she's kewel and her folks are together.

I'm sorry but as much as I support anyones right to bond I think
people put to much stake in bonding before they're prepared for the
commitment and are too quick to disregard a child's needs over their
own want's. A child needs parentS.

Any smart planner has a backup plan but a child needs a backup
planner. Kinda sux when the two involved are arguing with each other.
Everything here revolves around the kid and puts him/her in a spot I
would not want to be in. Custody... visitation... who really fucking
cares but the kid?

Sounds to me like each "parent" took her to the dentist and wants a
lolipop. How adult/responsible/caring is that considering her ordeal?

But wait...we're setting a precident!


Honestly that's where I'm at reading this kinda quick. Rebuttal
awaital.

[Wolf's Woman]

Post by Chilly Willy

Post by Wolf's Woman
http://www.equalityvirginia.org/site/pp.asp?c=dfIIITMIG&b=262607
FAQ: MILLER-JENKINS v. MILLER-JENKINS
Q. What is the name of the case?
A. The full name of the case is Janet Miller-Jenkins v. Lisa
Miller-Jenkins. The case is pending in the Court of Appeals of
Virginia and is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Frederick County,
Virginia.
On December 8, 2004, attorneys for Janet Miller-Jenkins, including
Joseph R. Price, the Board Chair of Equality Virginia and the Equality
Virginia Education Fund and Jay Squires, representing the Equality
Virginia Education Fund, filed an opening brief in the appeal. They
are joined by co-counsel Greg Nevins, Esq., of Lambda Legal Defense
and Education Fund, Inc and Rebecca Glenberg, Esq., of the ACLU of
Virginia. Amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs were filed in
support of Janet’s appeal by Virginia Poverty Law Center, the Virginia
National Organization of Women, the Virginia Chapter of the National
Association of Social Workers, the Virginia Organizing Project, Inc.
and the Virginia Women Attorneys Association, all of whom support
Janet’s position.
After a brief is filed by attorneys for Lisa Miller-Jenkins, and Janet
files a Reply brief, a panel of judges from the Court of Appeals will
hear oral arguments and then will issue a decision. A decision is
expected by mid-2005.
Q: Who are the parties to the case?
A: Janet Miller-Jenkins and Lisa Miller-Jenkins were partners
in a committed, openly lesbian relationship from 1998 to September,
2003. From 1998 to 2002, they lived together in Hamilton, Virginia, a
small town approximately fifty miles northwest of Washington, DC. On
December 19, 2000, Janet and Lisa traveled to Vermont to enter into a
civil union. Since July 1, 2000, Vermont has permitted same-sex
couples to enter into civil unions, which grant the couples under
Vermont law the same privileges and responsibilities of traditional
marriage. Since the Vermont civil union law took effect, thousands of
couples from out-of-state have chosen to travel to Vermont to
solemnize their unions and to make commitments which have the full
force of law.
Janet and Lisa returned to their home in Virginia, where they chose to
bring a child into their relationship through artificial insemination.
They chose for Lisa to carry the child, and worked together to select
a donor who would share Janet’s physical characteristics. On April
16, 2002, their child, a healthy girl, was born.
In July 2002, Janet, Lisa and their daughter moved to Fair Haven,
Vermont because Janet and Lisa believed that Virginia was an
unwelcoming state for their family. They established legal residence
in Vermont and lived together there until September, 2003, when Janet
and Lisa ended their relationship.
In September 2003, Lisa left Vermont with their daughter and returned
to Virginia. Janet remained in Vermont, and remains there today where
she owns a home and operates a successful business. In November,
2003, Lisa returned to Vermont and began a legal proceeding in the
Vermont Family court to dissolve her civil union with Janet. Like a
divorce proceeding, this lawsuit asked the court to end the legal
relationship between Lisa and Janet, to award Lisa custody of their
child, who Lisa described as a biological or adoptive child of their
union, and to order Janet to pay child support.
On June 17, 2004, the Vermont Family Court entered an order which
awarded Janet visitation rights with the couple’s daughter in Vermont
and Virginia. Lisa was unhappy with this order, and on July 1,
2004—the day the Affirmation of Marriage Act took effect—she filed a
proceeding in Frederick County Circuit Court in Virginia (the
“Virginia Court”), asking the Virginia Court to redecide the case and
find that Lisa was the sole parent of the couple’s daughter. Lisa
also asked the Virginia court to deny Janet any parental rights,
including the right to visitation with her daughter.
Q. Why is it significant that Lisa filed her Virginia
proceeding on July 1, 2004?
A. On July 1, 2004, the Virginia Affirmation of Marriage Act
became law. That law states that Virginia is prohibited from
recognizing out-of-state civil unions. Unhappy with the ruling of the
Vermont court, Lisa filed in Virginia on July 1 because she hoped that
a Virginia judge would use the Affirmation of Marriage Act to strip
Janet’s parental rights.
Q. What is the legal controversy?
A. Janet and Lisa are represented by attorneys in both the
ongoing Vermont Family Court proceeding and the Virginia Circuit Court
proceeding. In Vermont, Janet asserts that she has parental rights to
their child, which arise from the fact that their daughter was born
into the couple’s civil union. Janet hopes to remain an involved
parent with her daughter, and to share equally with Lisa in raising
her daughter. On November 17, 2004, the Vermont Court ruled that
Janet has all the legal rights any parent would have to a child born
into a marriage. On September 2, 2004, the Vermont Family Court also
found Lisa to be in contempt of court because Lisa refuses to comply
with the Vermont Court’s orders.
In Virginia, Janet is challenging the right of the Virginia court to
hear—or exercise jurisdiction over—the case. Under the laws of
Virginia, Vermont and the United States, once a court in one state has
taken jurisdiction over a child custody case, no other courts in any
state can subsequently also take jurisdiction over the case. Instead
the other courts must defer to the first court to exercise
jurisdiction and must enforce the orders of the first court. Lisa
started the Vermont proceeding, and that case is still ongoing. Then,
more than 7 months later, unhappy with the Vermont court, she filed a
case in Virginia in an attempt to use the Affirmation of Marriage Act
to get a different result. This is called “forum shopping” and it is
improper under Virginia and federal law.
Q. What are the laws in question?
A. Two laws are in question: Parental Kidnapping Prevention
Act (“PKPA”), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A, and Virginia’s Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), Va. Code Ann. §
20-146.1 et seq Both laws are designed to prevent what’s called
“forum shopping” in child custody cases. Before these laws were
passed, it was common for people unhappy with a court ruling in a
custody case to file a claim in another state where they thought the
laws were more favorable. This “forum shopping” created tremendous
problems with conflicting court orders, and encouraged people to
uproot children and move to states where they thought they would do
better in court.
In the Miller-Jenkins case, Lisa began the custody proceedings in
Vermont. Unhappy with the result, she filed another claim in Virginia
on the day that the Affirmation of Marriage Act became law. Through
her lawyers, Lisa argues that the Affirmation of Marriage Act should
be used to deny Janet parental rights.
The federal government and each state have passed laws to prohibit
this practice. Under the law, the court in the second state, here
Virginia, is required not to take jurisdiction and must enforce the
orders of the first court, here Vermont, exercising jurisdiction. It
doesn’t matter that the laws of the second state might produce a
different decision on custody.
Q. What happened in the Virginia Court?
A. In August, 2004, Judge Prosser of the Frederick County,
Virginia Circuit Court ruled against Janet and said that his court
could assume jurisdiction of the custody and visitation case. He
ruled that the Affirmation of Marriage Act was more powerful than the
Virginia, Vermont and federal laws, all of which prohibited him from
hearing the case. The Virginia judge decided that the General
Assembly, in passing the Affirmation of Marriage Act, intended that
law to overrule child custody laws that have been in place nationwide
for more than twenty years.
On December 8, 2004, Janet’s Virginia attorneys, including the
Equality Virginia Education Fund (and lead Attorney Joseph Price and
EVEF attorney Jay Squires) filed an appeal brief of Judge Prosser’s
decision with the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
Q. What is at stake in the appeal?
A. This case—the first of its kind—tests whether a state like
Virginia that refuses to recognize civil unions or gay marriage, can
ignore the judgment, orders or decrees of a court from a state, like
Vermont, that has recognized civil unions or gay marriage for its
citizens.
Janet’s appeal asks the Court of Appeals of Virginia to overturn Judge
Prosser’s decision because it violates long-established laws in
Virginia, Vermont and nationwide which prohibit forum shopping in
child custody cases. The appeal raises several legal reasons why
Judge Prosser was wrong, but an important argument challenges Judge
Prosser’s reliance on the Affirmation of Marriage Act. Janet’s appeal
argues that the Affirmation of Marriage Act cannot be used to overturn
child custody laws that have been in place for decades. Janet
position is that the Affirmation of Marriage Act and its prohibition
against recognizing civil unions are irrelevant. Lisa filed her
custody case in Vermont first, and Janet argues that the law plainly
states that Virginia courts cannot hear the case.
Janet asks the Court of Appeals of Virginia to overturn Judge Prosser
and to require him to recognize and enforce the orders of the Vermont
Family Court giving Janet visitation rights with her daughter.
Q. Why is the Equality Virginia Education Fund involved in
this case?
A. Janet requested the Equality Virginia Education Fund to
become involved in this case because EVEF has led the battle against
the Virginia Affirmation of Marriage Act. The decision Janet is
challenging threatens not only the orderly consideration of child
custody disputes, but gay and lesbian Virginians from every walk of
life. If it is upheld, Judge Prosser’s decision means that Virginia
courts can disregard established Virginia laws, the laws of other
states and the laws of the United States to discriminate against gays
and lesbians. Judge Prosser relied nearly exclusively on the
Affirmation of Marriage Act to support his decision. If Janet and
Lisa were a heterosexual couple, Judge Prosser could not have used the
Affirmation of Marriage Act to improperly assume jurisdiction in the
case.
EVEF believes that this case is the first important opportunity to
challenge the Affirmation of Marriage Act. In some ways, the legal
issues are technical, but the principle is critically important. EVEF
believes strongly that Virginia courts cannot use the Affirmation of
Marriage Act to make gays and lesbians second-class citizens who are
denied the benefit of long-established laws and legal procedures.
Victory in this case will be one blow against the Affirmation of
Marriage Act and an important beginning to ultimately doing away with
it entirely.
Please Support These Equality Virginia Sponsors
Pence Auto Group

I'm sorry but this took only so long for me to figure out that this
entire pile of crap is based on the same type of BS that is the reason
I am not, nor have ever been married or have wanted to be married.
Two people made a decision to bond and from that bonding a decision
was made to parent a child. This is not something you do on a whim
people it's something you DO! My next-door neighbors are jewish, from
back-east and scream at each other all the fucking time. But they are
*bonded*! They made that decision understanding perfectly well that
they agree to disagree at times and dispite all that they made a
conscious decision to *bond*. From that bond they have a child. I talk
to her on occasion, know that she likes hockey and is a little "butch"
but WTF... she's kewel and her folks are together.
I'm sorry but as much as I support anyones right to bond I think
people put to much stake in bonding before they're prepared for the
commitment and are too quick to disregard a child's needs over their
own want's. A child needs parentS.

i absolutely agree with ya. and i think that both Lisa and Janet made
a bad decision, not only in the civil union, but also in having a
child so quickly. however, the decision was made, and the child is
here.

Post by Chilly Willy
Any smart planner has a backup plan but a child needs a backup
planner. Kinda sux when the two involved are arguing with each other.
Everything here revolves around the kid and puts him/her in a spot I
would not want to be in. Custody... visitation... who really fucking
cares but the kid?

well, i can tell ya from personal knowledge that Janet also gives a
fuck. in the beginning of all this, all she wanted was reasonable
visitation rights ta see her daughter. not the ideal situation, but
also better than a lot of parents who divorce and then one parent just
disappears from the kid's life forever.

however, Lisa then took it a step further. she became a "former
lesbian," (BTW - for the third time..... draw yer own conclusions),
and went shopping fer a court that would giver her what she wanted: a
decision that would keep the child away from the AND I QUOTE: "evil
and immoral influence of an active lesbian."

at that point, Janet became kinda concerned about her daughter's
psychological well-being. i mean, talk about yer basic indoctrination
of hate and prejudice! Janet has also mentioned that Lisa is quite
racially prejudiced - is this child being taught to hate *everyone*
who's different than she is?

Post by Chilly Willy
Sounds to me like each "parent" took her to the dentist and wants a
lolipop. How adult/responsible/caring is that considering her ordeal?

see above.

Post by Chilly Willy
But wait...we're setting a precident!

yes, we are. if this were a heterosexual couple, this legal battle
would NOT be taking place. Illustration:

John and Judy live together in domestic bliss. together, they operate
a successful day-care business that provides well for them. after a
while, they decide to formalize their partnership.

John and Judy get married. after a short time, they discover that
John is sterile, and cannot impregnate Judy. the couple decides that
Judy will be artificially inseminated by an anonymous donor. they
choose a donor whose physical characteristics are somewhat close to
John's. the couple is delighted when the insemination is successful,
and Judy gives birth to a beautiful baby girl.

two years later, the marriage falls apart. Judy files for divorce,
and agrees to let John have visitation with the little girl. however,
Judy becomes very bitter over the divorce, and leaves the state where
the couple had resided.

the courts decide that the baby will be best off if she remains with
her mother, while John will be allowed to have liberal visitation
rights, and equal parental responsiblity.

Meanwhile, Judy files another suit in the state where she now resides,
asking that she be awarded full custody of the child, and that John be
denied any visitation rights, since he is not the biological parent of
the child.

End of illustration, because in case after case after case, the second
court has ALWAYS ruled that A.) even though one parent is not a
"biological" parent, that person is still a PARENT to the child, and
B.) it is illegal for the second court to enter into the case, since
federal law prohibits one state from claiming jurisdiction when
another state has already ruled in a child custody matter.

the ONLY issue here is the fact that Janet is openly gay, and the
"great" state of Virginia openly and LEGALLY allows the hatred of and
discrimination against homosexuals.

THAT'S why there NEEDS to be a precedent set here.

Off my rant now, i gotta tell ya, the one thing that everybody except
Janet, (and trust me, i've held her while she cried over that little
girl for hours!), seems ta forget is that there's a little
three-year-old girl involved here who only knows that fer some reason,
she's not bein' allowed ta see one of her mamas.

THAT'S the crime, and it's bein' perpetrated by the legal system on
BOTH sides of this case.

Post by Chilly Willy
Honestly that's where I'm at reading this kinda quick. Rebuttal
awaital.

Wolf's Woman

"With my hand on the head of the beautiful Black Wolf,
I walk now in beauty and light."

[toto]

Post by Wolf's Woman

Post by Chilly Willy
Any smart planner has a backup plan but a child needs a backup
planner. Kinda sux when the two involved are arguing with each other.
Everything here revolves around the kid and puts him/her in a spot I
would not want to be in. Custody... visitation... who really fucking
cares but the kid?

well, i can tell ya from personal knowledge that Janet also gives a
fuck. in the beginning of all this, all she wanted was reasonable
visitation rights ta see her daughter. not the ideal situation, but
also better than a lot of parents who divorce and then one parent just
disappears from the kid's life forever.
however, Lisa then took it a step further. she became a "former
lesbian," (BTW - for the third time..... draw yer own conclusions),
and went shopping fer a court that would giver her what she wanted: a
decision that would keep the child away from the AND I QUOTE: "evil
and immoral influence of an active lesbian."
at that point, Janet became kinda concerned about her daughter's
psychological well-being. i mean, talk about yer basic indoctrination
of hate and prejudice! Janet has also mentioned that Lisa is quite
racially prejudiced - is this child being taught to hate *everyone*
who's different than she is?

While I sympathize with Janet and more with the child, why didn't
Janet realize that this woman was not reliable. This is her third
time in Exodus or one of the other anti-gay conversion Churches?
Why would Janet marry a woman so prejudiced and so unstable in
the first place? Ah, yes... Love... Well, love may be enough when
there are no children involved, but it isn't always great when a child
has been created.

The question here I would ask Janet is what is best for the child, not
for her. Is dragging this through all the courts helping the little
girl? And if she does get custody or visitation, will not the child's
mind have already been poisoned against her by Lisa? Is this case
about gay rights or about doing what is best for the child? Can
anyone advocate solely for the child and not worry about either of
the parents in this case?

Do you remember the case where the biological parents fought for
custody of a child who had been adopted and was three and won?
Do you think that the boy in that case was better off by being ripped
from his adoptive parents arms and returned to the biological parents
even if the parents were the most loving parents in the whole world?
I don't.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

[Wolf's Woman]

Post by toto

Post by Wolf's Woman

Post by Chilly Willy
Any smart planner has a backup plan but a child needs a backup
planner. Kinda sux when the two involved are arguing with each other.
Everything here revolves around the kid and puts him/her in a spot I
would not want to be in. Custody... visitation... who really fucking
cares but the kid?

well, i can tell ya from personal knowledge that Janet also gives a
fuck. in the beginning of all this, all she wanted was reasonable
visitation rights ta see her daughter. not the ideal situation, but
also better than a lot of parents who divorce and then one parent just
disappears from the kid's life forever.
however, Lisa then took it a step further. she became a "former
lesbian," (BTW - for the third time..... draw yer own conclusions),
and went shopping fer a court that would giver her what she wanted: a
decision that would keep the child away from the AND I QUOTE: "evil
and immoral influence of an active lesbian."
at that point, Janet became kinda concerned about her daughter's
psychological well-being. i mean, talk about yer basic indoctrination
of hate and prejudice! Janet has also mentioned that Lisa is quite
racially prejudiced - is this child being taught to hate *everyone*
who's different than she is?

While I sympathize with Janet and more with the child, why didn't
Janet realize that this woman was not reliable. This is her third
time in Exodus or one of the other anti-gay conversion Churches?
Why would Janet marry a woman so prejudiced and so unstable in
the first place? Ah, yes... Love... Well, love may be enough when
there are no children involved, but it isn't always great when a child
has been created.
The question here I would ask Janet is what is best for the child, not
for her. Is dragging this through all the courts helping the little
girl? And if she does get custody or visitation, will not the child's
mind have already been poisoned against her by Lisa? Is this case
about gay rights or about doing what is best for the child? Can
anyone advocate solely for the child and not worry about either of
the parents in this case?
Do you remember the case where the biological parents fought for
custody of a child who had been adopted and was three and won?
Do you think that the boy in that case was better off by being ripped
from his adoptive parents arms and returned to the biological parents
even if the parents were the most loving parents in the whole world?
I don't.

i know. and i got mixed feelin's about what's really right, and in
the best interests, of little Isabella. but the fact remains that
there needs ta be a precedent set, so that no more little kids get
dragged through all of this shit.

i do know this: if Janet wins this case, Lisa will NEVER be denied
the right ta visit with Isabella. given her history, it'll be
supervised, but still, she will not be torn away from Lisa the that
she has been from Janet.

i keep goin' goin' back ta the fact that there are courts who both
claim that they're actin' in the best interests of the child. but
lets be honest: Vermont wants ta set precedent fer the civil union
law that we have here, and Virginia wants ta set precedent fer their
affirmation of marriage act. neither one is really concerned about
that little girl.

btw - yesterday, i found out that the Virginia court of appeals ruled
that Judge Prosser acted illegally in ruling that Virginia could take
jusrisdiction in this case. they basically said that he overstepped
his legal authority in this case. had he had the sense ta recognize
this in the first place, little Isabella would have been far less
traumatized in this whole thing.

all i know is personal experience in dealing with both women, and i
gotta tell ya - Lisa is a scary person. psychotic is the word that
comes ta mind fer me. Janet on the other hand has been really patient
and understanding, and seems, at least ta me, ta truly have the best
interests - long term and short term - of Isabella in mind with
everything she does.

Sorry, but i can't condone lettin' a child grow up thinkin' that every
person with brown skin is a "nigger," that everyone who partners with
a member of the same sex is an immoral, perverted sickening freak,
etc. there's already enough hate in the world, and it's time ta stop
it. and if that means takin' custody from the biological mother, then
so be it. i put that kind of education right up there with blatant
child abuse.


Wolf's Woman

"With my hand on the head of the beautiful Black Wolf,
I walk now in beauty and light."