Lisa Miller case

[temporal1]

mike:
.. “but the parental custody and gay marriage laws are already on the books.”

maybe, maybe not. states vary.
federal law doesn’t always supersede state law .. for instance, some states have legalized marijuana use. reportedly quite popular. but law isn’t supposed to reflect mob rule. which the mob adores. time passes, mobs do not change.

my question here is, how does JJ get to claim parenthood? she is not the bio or adopted parent. why not? why did she not see to her legal claim to the child? (it’s entirely possible, she did not want potential obligation for child support.)

regardless, JJ has no legal claim to parenthood - the courts label her as “next friend.”
“next friend” could be crucial to the welfare of some children (who do not have willing+capable legal parents).

frankly.
from what i’ve seen - not everything -
it appears JJ and the bloc taking up her legal side, are attempting to force the public AND courts to “gift” rights to JJ based solely on her lesbian life. (super citizen mindset.) bullies.

if this is the case, the legal system is in far worse trouble than was known.
“i’m homosexual, i can do as i please, or not, yet demand to prevail in courts, whether or not i’ve done my duty (required by courts).” in this case, JJ could have, but did not, secure any legal obligation to the child.

it’s safe to presume, “next friend” is the strongest legal label money could buy for JJ.
after all these years, the reference in this thread is the FIRST time i’ve known of it used in this case.
(“why media reporting cannot be trusted.”)

i would appreciate knowing this question of JJ’s “parenthood” was addressed in courts BEFORE any further action of any description. it appears there is serious legal bulldozing going on by powerful+monied political blocs.

the courts need to be wise.

[mike]

maybe, maybe not. states vary.
federal law doesn’t always supersede state law .. for instance, some states have legalized marijuana use. reportedly quite popular. but law isn’t supposed to reflect mob rule. which the mob adores. time passes, mobs do not change.

my question here is, how does JJ get to claim parenthood? she is not the bio or adopted parent. why not? why did she not see to her legal claim to the child? (it’s entirely possible, she did not want potential obligation for child support.)

It's on the books in Vermont. That's apparently why Jenkins and Miller married in Vermont where gay marriage was legal. As I understand it, this is all about Vermont's law at the time.

[temporal1]

maybe, maybe not. states vary.
federal law doesn’t always supersede state law .. for instance, some states have legalized marijuana use. reportedly quite popular. but law isn’t supposed to reflect mob rule. which the mob adores. time passes, mobs do not change.

my question here is, how does JJ get to claim parenthood? she is not the bio or adopted parent. why not? why did she not see to her legal claim to the child? (it’s entirely possible, she did not want potential obligation for child support.)

It's on the books in Vermont. That's apparently why Jenkins and Miller married in Vermont where gay marriage was legal. As I understand it, this is all about Vermont's law at the time.

ok. i wonder what is on the books.
if i recall, this was new+untested law in Vermont. i wonder if there was over-eagerness in the court?
“next friend” suggests over-eagerness.

the case is a confusion of various states and federal court. add in timing of changing laws in each of those courts.
i see nothing as cut+dry. “getting it wrong” will have a big ripple effect. political lobbies exist to GET THEIR WAY via human law. nothing less.

[Sliceitup]

mike:
.. “but the parental custody and gay marriage laws are already on the books.”

maybe, maybe not. states vary.
federal law doesn’t always supersede state law .. for instance, some states have legalized marijuana use. reportedly quite popular. but law isn’t supposed to reflect mob rule. which the mob adores. time passes, mobs do not change.

my question here is, how does JJ get to claim parenthood? she is not the bio or adopted parent. why not? why did she not see to her legal claim to the child? (it’s entirely possible, she did not want potential obligation for child support.)

regardless, JJ has no legal claim to parenthood - the courts label her as “next friend.”
“next friend” could be crucial to the welfare of some children (who do not have willing+capable legal parents).

frankly.
from what i’ve seen - not everything -
it appears JJ and the bloc taking up her legal side, are attempting to force the public AND courts to “gift” rights to JJ based solely on her lesbian life. (super citizen mindset.) bullies.

if this is the case, the legal system is in far worse trouble than was known.
“i’m homosexual, i can do as i please, or not, yet demand to prevail in courts, whether or not i’ve done my duty (required by courts).” in this case, JJ could have, but did not, secure any legal obligation to the child.

it’s safe to presume, “next friend” is the strongest legal label money could buy for JJ.
after all these years, the reference in this thread is the FIRST time i’ve known of it used in this case.
(“why media reporting cannot be trusted.”)

i would appreciate knowing this question of JJ’s “parenthood” was addressed in courts BEFORE any further action of any description. it appears there is serious legal bulldozing going on by powerful+monied political blocs.

the courts need to be wise.

There’s so much misinformation or lack of understanding in the dialogue that swirls around this case. Your question about how JJ can claim to be a parent is a perfect example. A child born to parents in a legal marriage is legally the child of both parents. This applies even if the biological father is not the one who the woman is married to. So if same sex marriage was legal, and just as legitimate in the eyes of the law as any other marriage, then the same would apply in this case. Likewise, a person who raises a child as their own, provides for them, and so on, usually has a legitimate issue in custody cases.

The reason why LM tried to have the case transferred to Virginia was because they had outlawed same sex marriage at this point. The idea was if the marriage wasn’t legit then JJ also didn’t have parental rights.

Your assertion that this case is purely about ‘I’m a homosexual, I can do as I please’ is rather dismissive.

Your assertion that JJ didn’t do the paperwork so she wouldn’t have to pay child support is a bit strange because she did pay child support.

Every time this case comes up I get frustrated with people’s arguments because too often they end up saying things that dismiss non biological parents as illegitimate. The number of adoptive families in anabaptist circles should make people realize that biological parents are not the only way of being a ‘real’ parent. I often wonder how adoptive parents feel when they read comments from Mennonites about this case.

[mike]

Every time this case comes up I get frustrated with people’s arguments because too often they end up saying things that dismiss non biological parents as illegitimate. The number of adoptive families in anabaptist circles should make people realize that biological parents are not the only way of being a ‘real’ parent. I often wonder how adoptive parents feel when they read comments from Mennonites about this case.

You make a good and valid point. The moral bankruptcy of gay marriage, with its redefinition of terms such as marriage and parenthood, despite legality in our society, is a different thing from adoptive and step-parenthood within a biblical marriage between a man and woman. (Or a single person adopting a child.) This difference must be clearly distinguished.

We live in a world that calls these three men parents to this child.



Although this may be legal, with all the normal legal ramifications and consequences of a marriage according to the law, Christians rightly object to categorizing this kind of "parenthood" with that which a husband and wife provide within a biblical marriage.

[Grace]

There’s so much misinformation or lack of understanding in the dialogue that swirls around this case. Your question about how JJ can claim to be a parent is a perfect example. A child born to parents in a legal marriage is legally the child of both parents

I always thought that, just because a child is born to parents in a legal marriage, doesn’t mean a non-biological marriage partner can be a legal parent. Don't non-biological marriage partners have to legally adopt children before they technically can be a child’s parent?

Wouldn't the logic that “a child born to parents is legally the child of both parents” be a good loophole for deadbeat parents? Take for instance, if a child is born out of an affair, while the woman is still married to someone else, the biological father could say, the child was born in a legal marriage. So the marriage partner is the parent, not the biological father, and then they could refuse to provide child support.

Here in Lancaster County there was a well known undertaker who had an affair with his neighbor. That neighbor got pregnant with his child, had the child, and remained married to her husband the whole time. (She acknowledged her mistake and her husband forgave her). So the child was born to parents in a legal marriage even though the husband was not the biological father. The undertaker killed his wife and has a lifetime prison sentence. So the woman and her husband are raising the child as their own. I don’t know if the husband ever adopted the boy, but he loves that child, same as he does the other children. So whose child is he? The biological undertaker father or the husband of his mother? Beings the child technically was born to parents in a legal marriage, does that absolve the undertaker father of providing financial support of his child?

Every time this case comes up I get frustrated with people’s arguments because too often they end up saying things that dismiss non biological parents as illegitimate. The number of adoptive families in Anabaptist circles should make people realize that biological parents are not the only way of being a ‘real’ parent. I often wonder how adoptive parents feel when they read comments from Mennonites about this case

Never did I ever hear anyone in Anabaptist circles claim that legally adopted children are illegitimate.

IMO non-biological parents who sexually abuse children are illegitimate, which is what JJ did and what LM was protecting her child from.

Temp is right. Why didn't JJ, claim parenthood legally? Why didn't she adopt Isabelle legally? Was it because she didn't want to support Isabelle financially?

[mike]

Temp is right. Why didn't JJ, claim parenthood legally? Why didn't she adopt Isabelle legally? Was it because she didn't want to support Isabelle financially?

Apparently, it was because she didn't think she had reason to.

Isabella was born in 2002. Pictures show a beaming Jenkins in the delivery room, assisting in the birth of her first child. Jenkins never adopted the child, however.

"I was told I never had to adopt her as long as she was born within our legal, civil union, just like a married couple," said Jenkins. "Why would you adopt your children? ... It's just like any couple that cannot have a child, it would be like if I was a man and I didn't have the sperm count to impregnate my wife, I would go to an anonymous donor as well. I wanted to have children."

Jenkins said she considered herself "absolutely" Isabella's mother, "100 percent."

[Sliceitup]

There’s so much misinformation or lack of understanding in the dialogue that swirls around this case. Your question about how JJ can claim to be a parent is a perfect example. A child born to parents in a legal marriage is legally the child of both parents

I always thought that, just because a child is born to parents in a legal marriage, doesn’t mean a non-biological marriage partner can be a legal parent. Don't non-biological marriage partners have to legally adopt children before they technically can be a child’s parent?

Wouldn't the logic that “a child born to parents is legally the child of both parents” be a good loophole for deadbeat parents? Take for instance, if a child is born out of an affair, while the woman is still married to someone else, the biological father could say, the child was born in a legal marriage. So the marriage partner is the parent, not the biological father, and then they could refuse to provide child support.

Here in Lancaster County there was a well known undertaker who had an affair with his neighbor. That neighbor got pregnant with his child, had the child, and remained married to her husband the whole time. (She acknowledged her mistake and her husband forgave her). So the child was born to parents in a legal marriage even though the husband was not the biological father. The undertaker killed his wife and has a lifetime prison sentence. So the woman and her husband are raising the child as their own. I don’t know if the husband ever adopted the boy, but he loves that child, same as he does the other children. So whose child is he? The biological undertaker father or the husband of his mother? Beings the child technically was born to parents in a legal marriage, does that absolve the undertaker father of providing financial support of his child?

The undertaker is not the legal parent of the child. Most states, and I believe PA is one of them, will make you the legal parent if you are married to a woman and she gives birth to that child. It doesn’t matter who the bio parent is. Doesn’t matter if the child was conceived before the marriage. Doesn’t matter. If you’re married to a woman who gives birth you are automatically the legal parent of that child. As a matter of fact, it can sometimes be very difficult for the biological father to get any legal right to the child if he attempts to do so.

[Grace]

The undertaker is not the legal parent of the child. Most states, and I believe PA is one of them, will make you the legal parent if you are married to a woman and she gives birth to that child. It doesn’t matter who the bio parent is. Doesn’t matter if the child was conceived before the marriage. Doesn’t matter. If you’re married to a woman who gives birth you are automatically the legal parent of that child. As a matter of fact, it can sometimes be very difficult for the biological father to get any legal right to the child if he attempts to do so.

Could you site your sources, where it states that marriage automatically makes a spouse the legal parent of a non-biological child?

I found this. I think it also applies to step parents.

Same sex couples can become parents in a variety of ways. For example, they can adopt a child from a third party or one of the partners in the same sex couple can give birth through the use of assisted reproduction including utilizing a third party sperm or egg donor and surrogate.

Even if one partner is the biological parent or egg or sperm donor of the child, the other parent may not have any legal rights regarding that child in the event of the relationship ending either by choice or due to the death of a biological parent.

This is true even if both parents have been actively involved in raising the child from its birth, living with the child, or financially supporting the child and the other parent.

And, despite the fact that the PA Department of Health, Vital Records Department will issue birth certificates with the names of same-sex spouses listed as the parents, same sex couples with children must take additional precautions, such as same sex partner/spouse adoptions, to ensure that both parent’s rights are legally protected.

Under Pennsylvania law, gay and lesbian couples may participate in a second parent adoption or a step-parent adoption if the same-sex couple is married. This allows the non-biological parent of the child to become a legal parent and establish rights which will be protected by law. In addition to protecting the non-biological parent’s rights, adoption also protects the child because it awards the child the opportunity to have health insurance through the non-biological parent and grants the child inheritance rights in the event that the non-biological parent dies without a valid last will and testament.


https://www.pafamilylawyers.com/childre ... nsylvania/

[Ken]

The undertaker is not the legal parent of the child. Most states, and I believe PA is one of them, will make you the legal parent if you are married to a woman and she gives birth to that child. It doesn’t matter who the bio parent is. Doesn’t matter if the child was conceived before the marriage. Doesn’t matter. If you’re married to a woman who gives birth you are automatically the legal parent of that child. As a matter of fact, it can sometimes be very difficult for the biological father to get any legal right to the child if he attempts to do so.

Could you site your sources, where it states that marriage automatically makes a spouse the legal parent of a non-biological child?

I'm pretty sure that it is the case in every single state, that a straight married couple who uses a sperm donor to conceive is considered the legal parents of the child. The man never has to go through the process of adoption to "legitimate" the child, even though it is not his biological child. The birth certificate is automatically printed with both parents listed rather than just the mother.

This is actually the case no matter how the woman gets pregnant. No state does DNA paternity tests on an infant before listing the father on the birth certificate if the couple is married. And I don't think they do it even if they couple is not married as long as the father comes forward to claim paternity and the mother does not object or dispute it. When it is a straight couple the state usually just defers to whatever the couple says.