babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Virginia "ex-lesbian" loses bid to deny custody and access to her ex-wife

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Virginia "ex-lesbian" loses bid to deny custody and access to her ex-wife
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 June 2008 03:12 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I guess that's one way to try and win a custody battle - move to a homophobic state, claim you're "cured" of lesbianism, and try to get the courts there to block access to the other parent.

Didn't work, though. The other parent won on appeal, IN VIRGINIA.

quote:
Virginia must honor a child custody order from a Vermont court issued after the breakup of a same-sex civil union there, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled on Friday.

The decision effectively granted parental rights to both members of a same-sex couple, notwithstanding a Virginia law, the Affirmation of Marriage Act, that makes same-sex unions from other states “void in all respects.”

A Virginia trial judge in 2004 had granted sole custody of Isabella Miller-Jenkins, now 6, to Lisa Miller, her biological mother, citing the Virginia law. Ms. Miller has said that she rejected homosexuality when she became a Christian, that she is Isabella’s only mother, and that she does not want her former partner, Janet Jenkins, to have visitation rights.

In 2006, a Virginia appeals court reversed the trial court’s decision, ruling that a 1980 federal law, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, required Virginia to defer to the Vermont courts.


I hope she's charged with kidnapping. I won't hold my breath though.

[ 07 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Will S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13367

posted 07 June 2008 09:29 AM      Profile for Will S        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I hope she's able to reconnect with her daughter and that her bio-mom hasn't filled her head with too much hate.
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 07 June 2008 09:39 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As "bio-moms" are wont to do about the other, "disposable" parent, right? B-S
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 June 2008 09:46 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
martin, if you can't refrain from putting words in people's mouths, you can stay out of this thread.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Will S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13367

posted 12 June 2008 12:49 PM      Profile for Will S        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
As "bio-moms" are wont to do about the other, "disposable" parent, right? B-S

Okay, I've been away for a while and I just caught this.

I'm not sure why my comment provoked this response. If I'm not using the proper terminology, then just tell me so. I used bio-mom because the article referred to one of the parents as the girl's biological mother. I certainly did not mean to infer the other parent is disposable.

On the contrary, my comment was stating my hope that the mother the girl is currently living with doesn't poison the girl towards her other mother - and I certainly think that's a possibility if she identifying as an "ex-lesbian" and the other mom is still out and proud.

Exactly what did I write that was so offensive, Martin?


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 13 June 2008 12:25 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hi, I have been away too and have had some time to reflect on what was a hasty, pithy reaction, but here is how it went.
I do political work against the so-called fathers' rights movement and
1) words like 'bio-mom' sound objectifying to me, too much like 'robocop' if you get my drift. Even 'biological mother' raises my hackles. You are either a mother or you aren't. As I see it, the only reason one would need to qualify it would be when there is an adoptive mother and a birth mother being discussed simultaneously. Not the case here.
2) this bit about 'poisoning the child's mind'... I can't hear that b-s anymore. I find that whenever a child isn't manifesting sufficient obedience or whatever to an estranged parent, especially a male estranged parent, that accusation is flipped out as casually as an accusation of witchcraft a few centuries back, regardless of the (often excellent) reasons for the youth's disaffection. Can we give mothers a f***g break here? They are not able or accountable for molding children's feelings into acceptable configurations and I think it's adding insult to injury to hold them accountable in this manner, using children against them when they are being already custodially challenged (I recommend reading Phyllis Chesler's Mothers on Trial (Beacon, 1988) - or surfing a few 'fathers' rights' hate websites to get a feeling of the misogyny underlying that glib accusation. I am not saying you hold that view, just that the vocabulary is tainted by that movement and the very real war waged against mothers in courtrooms, the media, the men's movement, etc.
3) Finally, I resented your blanket accusation against women who identify as former lesbians. I know a number of them and none bashes lesbians as you suggest this woman probably does. It is not because her ex is custodially challenging her, trying to force visitation on her - and maybe the child - that this mother is therefore homophobic.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ghislaine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14957

posted 13 June 2008 04:01 AM      Profile for Ghislaine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[QB]Hi, I have been away too and have had some time to reflect on what was a hasty, pithy reaction, but here is how it went.
I do political work against the so-called fathers' rights movement and
1) words like 'bio-mom' sound objectifying to me, too much like 'robocop' if you get my drift. Even 'biological mother' raises my hackles. You are either a mother or you aren't. As I see it, the only reason one would need to qualify it would be when there is an adoptive mother and a birth mother being discussed simultaneously. Not the case here.
QB]


Well why is biological or "bio-mom" not appropriate here? There are two mothers, as in the example you gave about adoption.

The language " you are either a mother or you aren't" seems to exclude lesbian parents - where there are two mothers - often one who is biological and one who is not.

What would you have us call the non-biological mother??


From: L'Î-P-É | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 13 June 2008 05:18 AM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
2) this bit about 'poisoning the child's mind'... I can't hear that b-s anymore. I find that whenever a child isn't manifesting sufficient obedience or whatever to an estranged parent, especially a male estranged parent, that accusation is flipped out as casually as an accusation of witchcraft a few centuries back, regardless of the (often excellent) reasons for the youth's disaffection. Can we give mothers a f***g break here? They are not able or accountable for molding children's feelings into acceptable configurations and I think it's adding insult to injury to hold them accountable in this manner, using children against them when they are being already custodially challenged (I recommend reading Phyllis Chesler's Mothers on Trial (Beacon, 1988) - or surfing a few 'fathers' rights' hate websites to get a feeling of the misogyny underlying that glib accusation. I am not saying you hold that view, just that the vocabulary is tainted by that movement and the very real war waged against mothers in courtrooms, the media, the men's movement, etc.


Just read a McLeans interview with a psychologist dude that "works" with kids who have been exposed to "divorce poison". Recently a judge ordered full custody to a parent and ordered the kid to attend this dude's 4 day intensive program. The judge said that the kid could be physically restrained, if needed, to get her/him to the program. The dude kept talking about how kids need to learn that they don't get to choose what parent they live with and seemed creepy and authoritarian in how he talked about kids. I will try to find a link later.


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 13 June 2008 06:07 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I will try to find a link later.

Good God, I hope you do. That's appalling!


From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 June 2008 06:43 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is that the same story we discussed in this thread? Because if so, I don't blame the judge - the father basically brainwashed the kid to hate his mother.

Parental alienation is extremely abusive, and yes, it DOES happen, and it's devastating when it does, for both the child and the alienated parent.

[ 13 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 13 June 2008 06:48 AM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's a tidbit of a Globe story I got off a blog. The original is subscriber only.

May 16, 2008

JUSTICE REPORTER -- A 13-year-old boy whose domineering father systematically brainwashed him into hating his mother can be flown against his will to a U.S. facility that deprograms children who suffer from parental alienation, an Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled.

Mr. Justice James Turnbull ordered the boy - identified only as LS - into his mother's custody. He said the boy urgently needs professional intervention to reverse the father's attempt to poison his mind toward his mother and, in all probability, to women in general.

"There will probably be future significant problems experienced by LS if the court does not intervene - including significant personal guilt for his part in the rejection of his mother, anger towards women, and dysfunctional relationships with women," Judge Turnbull said.

The judge flatly refused to take the boy's opinion on the therapy into account, saying that LS cannot exercise "free discretion in expressing his views" because of the influence his father has had on him.

Judge Turnbull observed that the father, 54, has repeatedly breached court orders granting the mother limited access to her son. He said the boy has come to perceive himself and his father as "intertwined and unable to distinguish one's thoughts from the other."

...

This is kind of the opposite situation that martin was talking about.

Here is the interview with the psychologist.


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 June 2008 06:49 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The judge is right. And that interview with the psychologist is excellent, in my opinion.

quote:
Again, what we have going for us is that the child really has an underlying wish to get out of this bind. I should clarify that often it is not the judge who orders the child to attend the workshop. Rather, the judge awards decision-making authority to the rejected parent who may then choose to enrol the child in the program, just as the parent is free to make other decisions regarding the child's health and education. Our program is designed to jump-start the reconciliation and offer a safe way to contain a child's anxiety and conflict. It's a misconception that the children are restrained. No child has been brought to me in restraints, and I would never work with a child under such conditions. They are oftentimes lectured by the judge about the necessity that they repair the damaged relationship. Once they understand they no longer hold a power that they should have never been given in the first place it's remarkable how much they co-operate.

[ 13 June 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 13 June 2008 06:53 AM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yup, same one. I found out about it through the interview with the psych. He just kind of weirded me out with how he talked about kids. But then again he's a psychologist and they're generally a weird, self obsessed bunch, especially when they get some fame or think that they've "discovered" something.
From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 13 June 2008 06:59 AM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
"judges are more willing to tell kids that they don't get to choose their parents just like they don't get to vote or drink alcohol."

How old are these kids?


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130

posted 13 June 2008 07:05 AM      Profile for oldgoat     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Generally speaking in ontario, as well as the rest of Canada AFAIK, there are a number of factors weighed, including the childs stated preference. Weight given to stated preference becomes stronger as the kid gets older. Generally, by twelve, the weight is considered preponderent unless there are fairly egregious reasons why the judge thinks the kid's making a bad decision, like wanting to live with one parent because their totally addicted crimminal violent lifestyle is "really cool". Those who hang around family court will tell you that actually young teens make reasonable and wise decisions.
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Will S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13367

posted 14 June 2008 07:18 AM      Profile for Will S        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
1) words like 'bio-mom' sound objectifying to me, too much like 'robocop' if you get my drift. Even 'biological mother' raises my hackles. You are either a mother or you aren't. As I see it, the only reason one would need to qualify it would be when there is an adoptive mother and a birth mother being discussed simultaneously. Not the case here.[/QB]

Okay. That's understandable. I agree that the term mother needn't be qualified. I just just bio-mom because the article identified the woman this way, and in this case there are two mothers and the woman who gave birth to the child is using her maternity as a part of this court case.

quote:
2) this bit about 'poisoning the child's mind'... I can't hear that b-s anymore. I find that whenever a child isn't manifesting sufficient obedience or whatever to an estranged parent, especially a male estranged parent, that accusation is flipped out as casually as an accusation of witchcraft a few centuries back, regardless of the (often excellent) reasons for the youth's disaffection. Can we give mothers a f***g break here? They are not able or accountable for molding children's feelings into acceptable configurations and I think it's adding insult to injury to hold them accountable in this manner, using children against them when they are being already custodially challenged (I recommend reading Phyllis Chesler's Mothers on Trial (Beacon, 1988) - or surfing a few 'fathers' rights' hate websites to get a feeling of the misogyny underlying that glib accusation. I am not saying you hold that view, just that the vocabulary is tainted by that movement and the very real war waged against mothers in courtrooms, the media, the men's movement, etc.
[/QB]

But this isn't a case of 'father's rights.' It's a case of another mother having rights. (Unless the other woman identifies her care-giving position differently). And when I said posioning her mind, I was specifically referring to the other mother's sexual orientation. The fact that this woman identifies as an ex-lesbian due to her new-found Christianity suggests she finds homosexuality to be incompatible with being on a righteous path.

quote:
3) Finally, I resented your blanket accusation against women who identify as former lesbians. I know a number of them and none bashes lesbians as you suggest this woman probably does. It is not because her ex is custodially challenging her, trying to force visitation on her - and maybe the child - that this mother is therefore homophobic.[/QB]

I'm interested in learning why these women are 'former lesbians.' If it's because they are fluidly sexual beings and change their self-identification based on their current status and attraction, I could see why they wouldn't be bashing people who currently identify as lesbians. If however, they are products of a religious-inspired ex-gay movement, I find this much more difficult to believe. It could be that, knowing you are a progressive, they simply avoid the subject with you. But, as a substantial literature suggests, ex-gay movements 1) Do not tend to work, 2) Cause tremendous psychological and emotional harm to 'ex-gays, 3) are the results of feelings of inadequacy based on widespread homophobia. After all, why the need to change if there's nothing wrong with being gay? At best, if ex-gays don't engage in bashing, I would reasonably expect they express condescending pity to us poor queers who haven't seen the light. Ugh. Based on what this article tells us, I suspect the ex-lesbian mother falls into this latter category.

quote:
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.[/QB]

And thanks for allowing me to clarify my remarks and respond. I am whole-heartedly with you on the need to combat misogyny in the father's rights movements and I'll stop using terms like bio-mom. But the 'ex-gay' angle in this story raises my hackles, and if this woman is raising her daughter in a Christian environment with finds a big swath of human sexuality morally wrong, than I do think this is a great risk the child will be told some unflattering and scaring things based about her other mom - if not directly, than indirectly based on her sexuality.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 14 June 2008 10:44 AM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Back-edited:
When we get to that level of speculation - the words "indirectly based on" are somewhat of an oxymoron - I think we need to remind ourselves that mothers can be demonized for being lesbians, yes, but also for being what is called "clinging" and "possessive" (valued in love, devalued in law), more or differently religious than what is deemed appropriate, disrespectful of an adult claiming entitlement (regardless of his or her merit), and they are generally accused of having "poisoned a child's mind" whenever one shares the child's own position in a matter of the other parent's custody & access, etc.

I have carefully read the judge's decision and the NYT article; the mother's decision to become a Christian and leave lesbian relationships warrants less than a sentence and isn't even mentioned in the judgment. So maybe this isn't really what is at stake, and is more of a red herring to dismiss that mother's rights.

We don't know, so we associate the little we are told with our own pitched battles in other issues.

The shortest route to understanding what may be going on here seems to be that a primary parent is requesting sole custody - apparently to reflect a primary caregiving role (physical custody) that has always been the case. We doknow that she is opposing visitation for reasons we know nothing about but that could be fully appropriate, i.e. not linked in any way to homophobia or to religious subjugation.

It bears recalling that a mother-blaming/bashing ideology that has, in recent decades, been given its viral character and acceptability to liberals by the so-called "fathers' rights" lobby has actually been around for a long time in this patriarchy. It remains well-ensconced in psychology, criminology and justice, and family law practice. One can be tempted to rely on it when attempting to affirme same-partner parenting prerogatives, esp. against an often corrupt justice system.

BTW, the mother didn't just choose to "move to to a homophobic state." She went back to her home state, where she had originally met her partner. Isn't there a bit of an enlightened masculine butch North vs. animalistic female femme South dimension to this struggle and how it is being presented?

[ 14 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

[ 14 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca