In Defense of Janet Jenkins, Lesbian Mom
According to Virginia Supreme Court to Weigh in on Lesbian Couple’s Custody Battle (CNSNews.com, April 15, 2008):
“The Virginia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Thursday in a case involving a lesbian couple fighting over who gets full custody of a five-year-old girl. Janet Jenkins, former partner of Lisa Miller, is suing for custody of Miller’s biological daughter even though Jenkins is not an adoptive or biological parent.
“Jenkins and Miller entered into a Vermont civil union in 2000 while living in Virginia. Miller got pregnant through artificial insemination from an anonymous donor and gave birth to her daughter in Virginia. The relationship eventually ended.”
I’ve covered this case on numerous occasions. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl’s life. Miller’s actions read like a checklist of what heterosexual women sometimes do to the fathers of their children, including: move the child far away; deny the noncustodial parent the opportunity to visit or co-parent the child; make an unsupported, dubious and oh-so-convenient accusation of abuse against the noncustodial parent; and pretend that the noncustodial parent is out-of-line or acting against the child’s best interests by wanting to continue the relationship with the child.
In my co-authored column, Ruling in Vermont Same-Sex Child Custody Case: Lesbian Moms, Divorced Dads in Same Boat (Rutland Herald & various others, 12/10/06), I supported lesbian social mom Janet Jenkins in her struggle to remain a part of her daughter’s life. I wrote:
“In a highly-publicized new decision, a Virginia appeals court ruled recently in favor of a lesbian social/non-biological mother in her custody battle against her child’s biological mother. The former couple, Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins, joined in a same-sex civil union in Vermont in 2000 and had a child together in 2002. After their breakup, Miller, the biological mother, moved to Virginia with their daughter Isabella, won sole custody, and excluded Jenkins from the girl’s life.
“Opponents of gay marriage, gay activists and the media have focused almost exclusively on the new decision’s impact on same-sex marriage. Lost in this, however, is the fact that the case is a textbook example of one of America’s greatest social problems—the refusal of many divorcing mothers to allow their children to continue to have a relationship with their former spouses.
“During Jenkins’ and Miller’s same sex-union Jenkins did everything she could do to be a good parent to their child. She was involved with the pregnancy from the beginning, was present in the delivery room, worked to support the family, and played an important role in Isabella’s life. Following their breakup she was granted visitation rights but Miller refused to comply. After the new ruling, Miller’s side vowed to further appeal the case to deny Jenkins access to the girl. Miller says she does not want Jenkins to have any visitation rights, and has not allowed her to see their daughter since 2004.Â
“Increasingly, other lesbian social mothers are suffering similar injustices. For example, in the A.H. v. M.P. case currently before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, the trial court ruled against A.H., a lesbian social mother, who had been the primary breadwinner for her partner M.P. and their young son. After separation M.P. sought to minimize A.H.’s role in the boy’s life, arguing that since A.H. was not the child’s primary caregiver, she should not receive joint custody of the boy…
“The problems heterosexual mothers create for their children and their ex-partners have been largely ignored, partly due to misleading stereotypes of abusive and/or ‘deadbeat’ fathers. Today fit, loving, lesbian social mothers like Jenkins and A.H. and their children face similar mistreatment. Ladies, welcome to the club.”
To learn more, see my blog posts Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment, Part I & Part II.
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
April 17th, 2008 at 4:03 am
Don’t care. It’s a lesbian thing (i.e. totally alien) and it has nothing to do with normal human beings (especially male humans).
And it also has nothing to do with men getting screwed by their exes, other than being proof that all women can be evil.
Glenn, homosexuality is wrong. That being said, what two people do in their own home is no business of mine (and I would appreciate you and the gay mafia stop trying to shove it down my throat).
April 17th, 2008 at 7:49 am
The other parent in this case is not the “lesbian social mother” just because the selfish mother prefers dyking down over responsible parenthood, whether the barely mentioned “anonymous donor” agreed to have no part in his daughter’s life or not.
It’s the whole idea that “dad” is whoever mom says he is that got children and fathers into the travesties they now routinely suffer. From the perspective of the child, the other parent is the “anonymous donor”, period, whether this unfortunate little girl understands that yet or not.
Maybe the “anonymous donor” is anonymous because he doesn’t even know he has a little girl. Maybe he is you or me. If not, then he is a true “deadbeat” who “abandoned” his child, and mommy wanting it that way doesn’t make it right.
You see, it’s not what mothers want that is most important like our gynocracy would have you believe, it’s what is right and best for children, families, and society, just as all societies understood well before the gynocrats took over and got our children and families and society into this hell.
Anybody with a clue knows that the prevailing “her choice” theology of feminist jurisprudence is bad for women too, but if this case and Glenn’s analysis comparing the “lesbian social mother” to an actual father helps some of the slower among us get their head out of the sand, then that’s a good thing.
April 17th, 2008 at 8:01 am
The scope of men’s rights activism has now expanded to include the defense of lesbian moms??
April 17th, 2008 at 8:31 am
Anyone who thinks supporting expansions of lesbian entitlements to marriage and divorce is going to get a fair shake for everyone else is kidding themselves. We have plenty of very legitimate problems of our own. Whether or not Heather has a right to have two mommies is most certainly not in our interests to pursue. Helping create the right for children to have two mommies via the back-end is highly detrimental to men’s legitimate parental interests. If you want to see all men turned into sperm donors to lesbian marriages, just keep this up.
April 17th, 2008 at 9:25 am
[...] Men’s News DailyThe Virginian-Pilot PinkNews [...]
April 17th, 2008 at 10:42 am
I don’t have very much sympathy for the lesbian’s parasitic attachment for the child. She has doesn’t the biological bonding that the actual mother has. Nor is she the “father” who would feel compelled to protect and provide.
The fact that the mother went Christian means that the lesbians lifestyle is abhorrent to the mother and counter to the religion – hence the woman is a bad influence. Having her around would be no different than if she was a drug dealer that the mother wished to avoid contact with.
While I sympathize that the tactic that is similar to what vindictive women do to their “ex’s”, why don’t we save the emotion for natural relationships.
If the lesbian wants a child, I’m sure there’s a test tube available somewhere.
April 17th, 2008 at 11:24 am
You folks from the deep south are living up to your expectations. You sound like a bunch of bitter, god fearing, gun loving apes. Stay in your cages! Seek therapy!
April 17th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I don’t understand what this has to do with men’s rights. “Equality” is not the sole or even the best basis for arguing against feminism; it isn’t necessary to show that fathers and lesbians are in the same boat.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Gesh… I guess I broke the rules… My post is nunka!
TMOTS
April 18th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Did any of you do those connect the dot drawing books?
This has a lot to do with MRA’s:
A) It displays that women can use PAS even in lesbian relationships (thus solidifying the claim PAS is real and harmful) but more importantly leads into:
B) the victim of PAS this time is a woman! As we all know protecting women in society is a much much easier sell then protecting men. So if MRA’s can use this reverse-gender custody battle (and the judge makes a positive-NCP ruling) this ruling will automatically apply to fathers too
C) Most importantly: it’s no secret that NOW and other womyn’s organizations are hugely populated with bulldykes. If we can highlight this case and ask these lesbians “how would YOU FEEL if……..” it could possibly shift the whole paradigm in the women’s groups establishments.
Last year I saw footage of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream speech” at the reflecting pool in D.C.
The crowd was about a good 50-70% white. What does this tell me? That civil rights (for blacks) wouldn’t have been won if not for hard-core white followers who believed real oppression and harm was going on against black.
Like it or not men/fathers are the new blacks. We CANNOT stand alone in this. Our only chance is getting as many people (men/women/black/white/latino/asian) in on this as possible–even lesbians.
April 18th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Without smart and productive men America is finished. We have almost 40% out of wedlock births now. Greater than that in some communities (70+% in Black community; almost that in Hispanic communities-combined Blacks + Hispanics make up a large and growing percentage of the total population). This means greater and greater government spending to support a growing segment of the population that is made up of single-parent households. There are costs associated with increased poverty, increased crime. More taxation at a time when the elderly population is beginning to explode. Combining retired seniors and a large underclass and we are talking about a HUGE and entrenced unproductive drag on the economy that comes at the same time in history when America is facing stiff competition by global competitors. India and China each produce many times more engineers and scientists than the U.S. does. America cannot live off past accomplishments forever. The costly and unproductive direction that America’s culture is going is unsustainable in the face of this stiff competition. America NEEDS men who are smart, productive, and have a vested interest in the society. To have vested interests men have to be first class citizens with rights, justice, and fairness. Damaging men’s position in society will only guarantee a much worse future for EVERYONE. We don’t need allies. We only need to protect our own interests (each of us). Let everything, and everyone else, go to hell. When the writing is on the wall and everyone else finally sees what is in store, they will all be looking for smart, productive men.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
This is an absolut disagrace and a good reason why we should not have gay marriage or gay civil unions…legal problems. No way should the mother be stripped of her biological child for someone with leading a life that over half of America says is immoral..