Lisa Miller case

[temporal1]

None of us present is a lawyer.
The link below refers to the workplace.

U.S. law allows and protects religious beliefs. Example for workplace situations:

Religious Discrimination & Harassment
It is illegal to harass a person because of his or her religion.
Harassment can include, for example, offensive remarks about a person's religious beliefs or practices. Although the law doesn't prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that aren't very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).
The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or someone who is not an employee of the employer, such as a client or customer.
https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination

(i presume) Josh has deeply held religious convictions. i may agree or disagree. he has a right to his beliefs, esp on an informal Christian opinion forum. right?

Josh has every right to his religious beliefs. He doesn’t have a right to dictate the civil union laws of Vermont. Under Vermont law, Jenkins had legal rights regardless of whether you or Josh think she should have had them. You can try to dismiss these rights and pretend they didn’t exist, but that doesn’t change the facts of this case.

o.sorry. i didn’t know Josh or anyone present had that kind of power in the court system. (not even crazy Vermont courts.)

K:
The fact that you are equivocating suggests that you actually know the answer but would rather change the subject.

Avoid speculation. It’s a waste of time.

i did a brief search, found NOTHING.
a presumption could be, if JJ was named, it would have been prominately featured in mainstream reports.
speculation is close to worthless, but it can cause harm. your goal??

i don’t recall a birth cert showing up in any forum discussion over YEARS. my guess would be JJ is not named.

honestly, i believe i recall JJ had early misgivings about potential liability for child support.
easy to believe. child support causes LOADS of conflict in this world. “better men than she” fight it.

[Josh]

Miller and Jenkins were in a civil union, which is similar to a marriage and depending on the jurisdiction has the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. When the couple split up, their civil union was dissolved by a court similar to divorce.

It’s a complete mischaracterization to depict Jenkins as Miller’s “roommate.”

A "civil union" is not a "marriage", and the question at hand is whether or not JJ was the child's parent. (She wasn't by any reasonable definition of the word.)

This is completely not true. Stop lying Josh.

A civil union is not a marriage, and some of us believe that you cannot be married to someone of the same sex.

Can you point out what I'm lying about? JJ was not the child's mother. A child has a birth mother, or an adoptive mother if the birth mother gives the child up.

[Josh]

Josh has every right to his religious beliefs. He doesn’t have a right to dictate the civil union laws of Vermont. Under Vermont law, Jenkins had legal rights regardless of whether you or Josh think she should have had them. You can try to dismiss these rights and pretend they didn’t exist, but that doesn’t change the facts of this case.

You know, Szd, there used to be laws that granted slaveowners legal rights to do whatever they wanted to slaves.

The fact is that such "rights" were always unlawful and wrong, and no moral person had any duty to respect things like fugitive slave laws, or treating slaves as if they were the slaveholder's property.

Do you disagree?

[nett]

Josh has every right to his religious beliefs. He doesn’t have a right to dictate the civil union laws of Vermont. Under Vermont law, Jenkins had legal rights regardless of whether you or Josh think she should have had them. You can try to dismiss these rights and pretend they didn’t exist, but that doesn’t change the facts of this case.

Except VA, where Lisa Miller resided didn't recognize gay civil unions. I truly don't understand the desperate shrieking that Lisa Miller should have allowed JJ to abuse her daughter because "law".

This after all the posturing and virtue signaling about the Amish abuse documentary. You should all be ashamed of yourself to be honest.

[temporal1]

i’m ashamed these exact discussions have repeated over years. no change i’m aware.
except Isabella has aged-out of the system, and her mother is free today.

i’ve been waiting for my car to be repaired. not sure what everyone else has been up to.

[nett]

i’m ashamed these exact discussion have repeated over years. no change i’m aware.
except Isabella has aged-out of the system, and her mother is free today.

i’ve been waiting for my car to be repaired. not sure what everyone else has been up to.

Isabella has made it quite clear that she is happy with how things turned out for her in Nicaragua, away from her grooming, abusing, not-mother.

This simple fact have been completely ignored by all the radical leftists here, who clearly prioritize the LGBT agenda much higher than the concern of children being abused.

[Ken]

LM and JJ were never married.

Could you explain to us exactly why you feel JJ should have had "full parental rights"? Exactly how or in what way was she a parent?

Was she listed on the child’s birth certificate?

Let's rehash this. LM and JJ were never married. LM gave birth to Isabella. JM is not the father, obviously, and is not the mother either - the child has a mother, the one who gave birth to her. (And that was never in dispute.)

So, I'm interested in hearing what, exactly, kind of relationship you think JM had, other than "mommy's roommate". The child herself is an adult now and has made it clear she isn't interested in JM's continuing lawsuits on her "behalf".

All we have to go by is what the parties to the dispute actually said and did. These are the facts.

1. LM declared JJ to be the co-parent of their daughter and had her listed on the child's birth certificate.
2. When LM filed for dissolution of their legally established civil union, she acknowledged in her court filing that JJ had parental rights and specified that the child was the “biological or adoptive child" of JJ. That language is from LM's actual court filing for dissolution of the civil union.
3. In her original court filing she asked for custody of the child and that JJ be granted visitation rights.
4. As part of her court filings, LM asked the court to order JJ to pay child support.

These are all the facts of the case. Not my opinion, or what I think. They are the actual legal filings made by LM in 2003. The court filings and decisions are all public documents and you can look them up yourself: https://legislature.vermont.gov/Documen ... 3-2017.pdf

All of this would be an utterly mundane custody dispute in any heterosexual marriage or civil union with a child conceived through artificial insemination.

At some point after all of this happened LM decided unilaterally that she was going to unwind all of this legal entanglement that she, herself, willingly entered into and declare herself to be the sole parent and sole custodian of the child. The rest of the court case and events followed.

As you point out, the child is now an adult and free to do whatever she wants and see and associate with whomever she wants. I am deliberately not using her name so it doesn't pop up in a google search because none of this is her doing, and she deserves her privacy.

[temporal1]

.. an utterly mundane custody dispute ..

no such thing. “dispute” guarantees it.

[Ken]

.. an utterly mundane custody dispute ..

no such thing. “dispute” guarantees it.

Mundane as in common. I looked it up. The Census Bureau reports that there are 12.9 million custodial parents in this country and 21.9 million children living under custody agreements of some kind. Approximately 90% of all custody agreements are settled out of court but even with the 10% that do go to court we are still talking well over a million custody cases. So the LM case would fall into that million.

[Szdfan]

.. an utterly mundane custody dispute ..

no such thing. “dispute” guarantees it.

Mundane as in common. I looked it up. The Census Bureau reports that there are 12.9 million custodial parents in this country and 21.9 million children living under custody agreements of some kind. Approximately 90% of all custody agreements are settled out of court but even with the 10% that do go to court we are still talking well over a million custody cases. So the LM case would fall into that million.

I think a lot of people commentating here don’t know anything about high conflict child custody cases