Lisa Miller-Jenkins has refused to allow her ex-partner Janet
to visit their 2-year-old daughter Isabella, relying on a Virginia court ruling
that cited the state’s new ban on civil unions.
La Clinica blames staffing, facility hurdles for trans program delays
Official says non-commercial ‘cruising’ not prosecuted
advertisement
advertisement
|
ADRIAN BRUNE
Friday, September 17, 2004
Despite a Vermont court’s ruling finding her in contempt, Lisa Miller-Jenkins,
a “former lesbian” enmeshed in a contentious, interstate custody battle,
again refused to comply with her ex-partner’s court-ordered visitation,
paving the way for sanctions against her.
Attorneys for Janet Miller-Jenkins say they plan on petitioning Rutland Family
Court Judge William D. Cohen to impose a large fine against Lisa, or to incarcerate
the biological parent of 2-year-old Isabella until she agrees to obey the terms
of a temporary custody order.
However, they will wait until filing an appeal with the Virginia Court of Appeals,
asking it to reverse a lower court’s decision last month that granted
Virginia — Lisa’s home state — jurisdiction in the dispute
under its newly enacted civil unions ban.
“Our view is that we need to proceed with [Frederick County Circuit Court
Judge John R.] Prosser’s mistake, and once we obtain a reversal, nothing
will stop us from getting this contempt order enforced,” said Joseph Price,
Janet Miller-Jenkins’ Virginia attorney. Price is also president of Equality
Virginia, a gay rights group.
“Lisa still thinks she has the luxury of hiding behind Prosser’s
order, but Cohen has a range of options, even ordering Lisa to return to the
jurisdiction of Vermont to relinquish custody.”
The most recent chapter in the nationally monitored wrangle, which raises legal
questions about civil unions and same-sex marriage, unfolded late last week
as Janet Miller-Jenkins, 39, prepared to journey to Virginia from Vermont and
bring Isabella back for a weeklong visit.
Instead of the trip “again resulting in naught for Janet,” Price
said, he submitted a letter to lawyers for Lisa Miller-Jenkins, 33, asking them
to notify him of Lisa’s intent — whether or not she would hand over
the child.
Lisa’s attorneys, Peter T. Hansen and Phillip S. Griffin of Winchester,
did not respond to the letter sent by fax, or the follow-up phone calls from
Price.
“So I assumed that Lisa had no intention of complying and started preparing
for our next step — an appeal, then sanctions,”
Price said.
Lisa Miller-Jenkins’ Virginia attorneys and her Vermont lawyer have all
refused to comment on the contempt order after repeated requests from the Blade
as well as from daily newspapers in Washington, D.C. and Vermont.
Instead, all publications received an e-mail notice from Kevin Blier, the executive
director of Center for American Cultural Renewal — an organization involved
in the revocation of Vermont civil unions that is funding Lisa’s legal
proceedings — asserting his position as Lisa’s spokesperson for
Lisa Miller-Jenkins.
The e-mail criticized recent news coverage, which he said, “uncovers
a decisive tilt” in favor of Lisa’s ex-partner. Blier also condemned
Janet for “exploiting the “young girl she claims to love as her
own daughter,” and lauded Lisa’s refusal to talk to the press.
Last summer, Blier’s organization sent out a letter featuring a picture
of Lisa with Isabella, soliciting funds to “protect Lisa and Isabella
from being separated by Lisa’s ex-partner to further the extreme ideology
of the radical homosexual agenda!”
When Judge Cohen issued the contempt order on Sept. 2, he did not impose punishment
for Lisa. His goal, he said, was to ensure compliance with his earlier order
granting Janet visitation until the court determines custody of Isabella. He
sharply reprimanded Lisa, however, and declared his intention to appoint a lawyer
to represent Isabella’s interests in Vermont.
Under normal conditions, the Full-Faith & Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution
would require Virginia to honor Cohen’s visitation order and his contempt
ruling. But last month, Judge Prosser claimed that Virginia held jurisdiction
over the custody lawsuit, invoking the state’s newly enacted civil unions
ban, which invalidates all legal agreements “purporting to bestow the
rights and benefits of marriage.”
Janet’s Virginia attorneys have said they will not participate in future
lower court proceedings in Virginia, including an upcoming one in which Judge
Prosser will determine custody and visitation rights — a replication of
Vermont events.
They contend that Virginia shouldn’t take up a custody case already underway
in Vermont under federal law and its own child-custody statute.
“We believe Judge Prosser does not have a right to hear this case,”
said Price, Janet’s Virginia attorney. “He has ignored two laws
to make a political statement, instead of objectively applying law to a case.”
Adrian Brune can be reached at abrune@washblade.com.
|
