Lisa Miller case

[mike]

I'm pretty sure that it is the case in every single state, 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.

And it doesn't really matter for this case anyway, because all of that was already litigated, and the court in Vermont gave Jenkins full custody after Lisa stopped complying with visitation orders. The lack of adoption obviously did not stand in the court's way, so Jenkins was right; it didn't really matter.

[temporal1]

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

i’m short on time, but briefly ..
i believe i hedge nearly all comments/questions with words like, “I DON’T HAVE ALL DETAILS” .. “the public does not know,” “reports are incomplete,” etc. - so, i see nothing strange or dismissive about asking honest questions.

you might approach others with this sort of questioning, too. “why?” “i don’t understand,” “am i missing something?”
when it comes to court cases, the public is never fully informed. proven over+over.

i’m not Mennonite or Anabaptist, also regularly cited.
turns out: surprise! Anabaptists aren’t the only ones that embrace Jesus Christ, family, morality, etc.
turns out: surprise! people from the world with a lifetime including several good homosexual friends and neighbors can also want those folks to be honest, fair, respectful of others, not joining political blocs in order to bully their interests above others, now including interests of children.

not that they shouldn’t have rights. they do.
they should not have special rights that invite legal bullying.

paternity tests.
nothing new. because biological fathers are important. ask Hunter Biden.

i appreciate your comments, tho. i don’t mean to be grumpy. i’ve got to go.
i’ll read more carefully later. i’m glad Grace and mike are responding.

[temporal1]

mike:
And it doesn't really matter for this case anyway, because all of that was already litigated, and the court in Vermont gave Jenkins full custody after Lisa stopped complying with visitation orders. The lack of adoption obviously did not stand in the court's way, so Jenkins was right; it didn't really matter.

That’s how court decisions USED TO BE.
Today, every “decision” is just a matter of appeal.

This is a big part of why the courts are a mess. No more real respect for court decisions.
In this case, the Vermont decision needs to be questioned. It was untested law, simple eagerness to act on it may have marred “judgment.”

[mike]

mike:
And it doesn't really matter for this case anyway, because all of that was already litigated, and the court in Vermont gave Jenkins full custody after Lisa stopped complying with visitation orders. The lack of adoption obviously did not stand in the court's way, so Jenkins was right; it didn't really matter.

That’s how court decisions USED TO BE.
Today, every “decision” is just a matter of appeal.

This is a big part of why the courts are a mess. No more real respect for court decisions.
In this case, the Vermont decision needs to be questioned. It was untested law, simple eagerness to act on it may have marred “judgment.”

Questioning court decisions takes time, but especially money. I don't know if Lisa is soliciting donations for her legal defense, but I haven't seen anything, so I doubt it. Maybe she wouldn't challenge the old court rulings anyway, even if she could.

[Ken]

mike:
And it doesn't really matter for this case anyway, because all of that was already litigated, and the court in Vermont gave Jenkins full custody after Lisa stopped complying with visitation orders. The lack of adoption obviously did not stand in the court's way, so Jenkins was right; it didn't really matter.

That’s how court decisions USED TO BE.
Today, every “decision” is just a matter of appeal.

This is a big part of why the courts are a mess. No more real respect for court decisions.
In this case, the Vermont decision needs to be questioned. It was untested law, simple eagerness to act on it may have marred “judgment.”

Questioning court decisions takes time, but especially money. I don't know if Lisa is soliciting donations for her legal defense, but I haven't seen anything, so I doubt it. Maybe she wouldn't challenge the old court rulings anyway, even if she could.

In Vermont you have 30 days to file an appeal after an adverse court decision. So the clock has long since run out on any appeals of any legal decisions in Vermont, whether she wanted to do it or not (click the link that says Summary Outline of Process and Timeline): https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/suprem ... reme-court

[ohio jones]

The undertaker killed his wife ...

Business must have been slow....

[Grace]

The undertaker killed his wife ...

Business must have been slow....

It was a long sordid story that rocked Lancaster County.

[temporal1]

That’s how court decisions USED TO BE.
Today, every “decision” is just a matter of appeal.

This is a big part of why the courts are a mess. No more real respect for court decisions.
In this case, the Vermont decision needs to be questioned. It was untested law, simple eagerness to act on it may have marred “judgment.”

Questioning court decisions takes time, but especially money. I don't know if Lisa is soliciting donations for her legal defense, but I haven't seen anything, so I doubt it. Maybe she wouldn't challenge the old court rulings anyway, even if she could.

In Vermont you have 30 days to file an appeal after an adverse court decision. So the clock has long since run out on any appeals of any legal decisions in Vermont, whether she wanted to do it or not (click the link that says Summary Outline of Process and Timeline): https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/suprem ... reme-court

i hope no one reading this mistakes your opinions/google searches inspired by lib political media bias,
for licensed legal counsel.

this situation is all the more sensitive, being between a godless politically-centered bloc “aggressively versus” a committed literal self-chosen “defenseless” Jesus-centered CO. in other cases, such as the wedding cake cases, or the Nick Sandmann case, i know of no conflict of faith questions for defendants. amoral plaintiffs have no moral compass to not pursue.

in a boxing ring, if one boxer refuses to lift a hand against his named “opponent,” does the opponent beat down the other, walk away pridefully as “winner,” or refuse to participate and walk away? there is a choice.

morality, honor, self-respect should not be abandoned in the grand quest to prevail. there is a high price.

[temporal1]

mike:
And it doesn't really matter for this case anyway, because all of that was already litigated, and the court in Vermont gave Jenkins full custody after Lisa stopped complying with visitation orders. The lack of adoption obviously did not stand in the court's way, so Jenkins was right; it didn't really matter.

That’s how court decisions USED TO BE.
Today, every “decision” is just a matter of appeal.

This is a big part of why the courts are a mess. No more real respect for court decisions.
In this case, the Vermont decision needs to be questioned. It was untested law, simple eagerness to act on it may have marred “judgment.”

Questioning court decisions takes time, but especially money. I don't know if Lisa is soliciting donations for her legal defense, but I haven't seen anything, so I doubt it. Maybe she wouldn't challenge the old court rulings anyway, even if she could.

The Great Unknown.

i hope she has excellent counsel, to make informed choices, no matter her choice.
making informed decisions carries special meaning. the results can be specially far-reaching.

in this case, i imagine, the finest defense counselors and judges are wont to know how to proceed.
Ken Miller’s judge reflected the difficulty/dilemma he faced.

[Ken]

Questioning court decisions takes time, but especially money. I don't know if Lisa is soliciting donations for her legal defense, but I haven't seen anything, so I doubt it. Maybe she wouldn't challenge the old court rulings anyway, even if she could.

In Vermont you have 30 days to file an appeal after an adverse court decision. So the clock has long since run out on any appeals of any legal decisions in Vermont, whether she wanted to do it or not (click the link that says Summary Outline of Process and Timeline): https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/suprem ... reme-court

i hope no one reading this mistakes your opinions/google searches inspired by lib political media bias,
for licensed legal counsel.

this situation is all the more sensitive, being between a godless politically-centered bloc “aggressively versus” a committed literal self-chosen “defenseless” Jesus-centered CO. in other cases, such as the wedding cake cases, or the Nick Sandmann case, i know of no conflict of faith questions for defendants. amoral plaintiffs have no moral compass to not pursue.

in a boxing ring, if one boxer refuses to lift a hand against his named “opponent,” does the opponent beat down the other, walk away pridefully as “winner,” or refuse to participate and walk away? there is a choice.

morality, honor, self-respect should not be abandoned in the grand quest to prevail. there is a high price.

I've never claimed to be an attorney. I don't think anyone on this forum is. We are all just commenting here because this topic is in the news, not because Lisa Miller's attorneys might be reading mennonnet for litigation strategies.

I'm not sure what wedding cakes and Nick Sandmann's civil suit have to do with anything. It sounds like you are just flailing around on random irrelevant topics.

And yes, in a court of law, if you don't file appeals within the prescribed time frame you do lose your chance to do so. Every court works that way. There are exceptions. Like if the state illegally withholds evidence. But those are rare. In any event, she is now in Federal court on international child kidnapping charges, not state court arguing custody issues.

It would seem she has two choices. Pursue some sort of plea deal. Or take the case to trial and try to mount some sort of religious liberty defense and risk a much longer sentence. I don't know enough about the Federal law in question to know whether such a defense has any chance of success. But I rather doubt it. That would open up an enormous can of worms and leave the door open for any mixed faith couples to engage in child kidnapping to violate custody agreements on the grounds that they disagree with their spouse's or partner's faith. Where would it stop? Muslim parents kidnapping their children from Christian spouses. Christian spouses kidnapping their children from Jewish spouses. Atheists kidnapping their children from evangelical spouses. Etc. etc. etc. All of them justified on the basis of religious liberty. I doubt the courts want to set that precedent.

Feel free to explain what specifically I'm getting wrong about the process if you disagree. I would be the first to admit that this isn't my area of expertise.