Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment, Part II
February 6th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesI've written before about the highly-publicized ruling in the Virginia/Vermont lesbian child custody battle between former civil union partners Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins. 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.
I've noted that 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.
Like most divorced dads do, Jenkins soft-pedals her ex-partner’s appalling behavior, trying to avoid conflict in the interests of their child. She says that if she does win custody (which she should), she will be very careful to make sure that her former partner’s relationship with her daughter is protected and respected.
A new article in the Washington Post Magazine by April Witt (witta@washpost.com) called About Isabella demonstrates that Miller's actions are straight from the playbook unscrupulous divorce attorneys use to help vindictive mothers convince the courts that they were mistreated or are in fear of their exes. According to the article:
"Lisa later testified that Janet was physically and emotionally abusive to her -- allegations Janet denied under oath...Lisa testified that Janet regularly blew up and belittled her, allegations Janet called a fiction designed to discredit her. 'Again, it was the monthly blowups,' Lisa testified. 'She would restrain me from going into another room. She would ask me for a divorce again. She would tell me, though, that I couldn't make it on my own'...According to Lisa, Janet continued to have an explosive temper."
The article also mentions, in passing, Lisa's attempts to demean Janet in their daughter's eyes and to push Janet further out of her life:
"Lisa...penned a little note, ostensibly from Isabella, on [an] Easter card. That note referred to Janet by a new nickname: 'Up' because Isabella sometimes said 'Up' or 'Uppy' when she wanted Janet to pick her up. Janet, who wanted to be called 'Momma,' later testified that she felt Lisa was orchestrating a demotion of her standing in Isabella's eyes.
"Now Lisa made it increasingly difficult for Janet to see Isabella, Janet testified. Janet flew to Virginia and showed up at Lisa's door to pick up Isabella, only to find no one home, she said. Janet telephoned daily; Lisa said Isabella didn't want to talk to her, Janet testified.
"'I cried every day,' Janet said."
Eventually a judge took a hard line against Miller's efforts:
"Nobody was leaving the hearing that day, the judge said, until both sides worked out a temporary visitation schedule that allowed Isabella, 25 months old, to spend time with both Janet and Lisa. He would decide final custody later.
"[Jenkins' attorney] told the judge that in addition to visiting Isabella in Virginia some weekends, Janet also wanted to bring her to Vermont at least one week each month.
"'We're going to grant the request,' the judge said.
"Lisa was devastated. 'I felt like Isabella had become a political hostage,' she said."
This is one of my favorite alienating mothers' tactics--pretend to be "devastated" and "shocked" that (gasp) the court is actually calling her on her behavior and forcing her to do what she should have done from the beginning without a second thought--allow her ex to remain a part of their child's life.
I'm in Janet Jenkins' corner on this one all the way. To learn more about the case, see my co-authored column Ruling in Vermont Same-Sex Child Custody Case: Lesbian Moms, Divorced Dads in Same Boat (Rutland Herald, Montpelier-Barre Times Argus, 12/10/06 and others) and my blog entry Sad but Delicious Irony–Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment.
"));
19 queries. 0.826 seconds.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
"This is one of my favorite alienating mothers’ tactics–pretend to be “devastated” and “shocked” that (gasp) the court is actually calling her on her behavior and forcing her to do what she should have done from the beginning without a second thought–allow her ex to remain a part of their child’s life."
The shock (gasp) is a result of expectation and entitlement.
"Allow her ex to remain a part of their child’s life" should mean much more than every other weekend and Wednesday nights.
Shock (gasp), in 2006 Australia passed a law requiring Shared Parenting.
February 7th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Nobody would think to question Janet Jenkins's motivation in contesting custody because she is a woman.
However, there are those like Michael Flood who would say that fathers don't really want custody, they only want to reduce their child support or they only want to remain in their ex-spouse's life.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:03 am
It's an interesting case... but we should be careful not to equate this to fathers and fathers' rights cases. Essentially this woman is a stepmom, someone who has assumed a motherly role without a biological basis. Without knocking step-parents, there is a qualitative difference between a step-parent and a biological one. If you decide that non-biological parents have custody rights, biological fathers may find themselves fighting against new stepfathers, who have presumed equal rights. On the other side, giving a presumption of custodial rights to non-biological parents makes it easy to argue for a presumption of obligation as well--- which easily leads to blatant stupidity like the recent Rocky Mountain News editorial asking deceived dads to pay child support for kids that aren't even theirs. In all likelihood, the non-biological mother in this case has only known the child for a maximum of 2 years (since the hearing was for a 2-year-old, it is likely the move away was much earlier). If you had lived with someone for one or two years, creating a step-parent relationship for your child, and later you moved out, should that person get custody rights over your child? I don't think so. While there are lots of things wrong with this situation, be careful about drawing too many parallels to non-custodial biological fathers, who have a much stronger interest (claim/bond) that needs more protection than this interesting legal sideshow of poor choices made by these particular individuals.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:48 am
[...] Read the full article here. To learn more, my co-authored column Ruling in Vermont Same-Sex Child Custody Case: Lesbian Moms, Divorced Dads in Same Boat (Rutland Herald, Montpelier-Barre Times Argus, 12/10/06 and others) and my blog entries Sad but Delicious Irony–Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment and Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment, Part II. [...]
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:00 am
The mother who supported her partner, was present at the birth and helped raise the child is NOTHING LIKE a step-parent. She is exactly the same as an infertile husband who chooses to use a sperm donor so his wife can have their child. A step-parent comes onto the scene as a parent's partner AFTER two people have had a child together. A step-parent does not choose to have a child with that person. It is extremely bigoted and ignorant to call a gay second parent a step-parent.
May 14th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
A while back, there was a case in California of a little girl who had five or six potential parents:
1) The woman who had provided the egg used to create her
2) The man who had provided the sperm used to create her
3) The woman who physically bore her
4) The husband of 3)
5) The infertile woman who commissioned the creation of the child
6) The husband of 5), who she had believed would act as the father
After the little girl was conceived, 6), who was seeking a divorce from 5), sued to be released from parental responsibility, arguing that he was not the child's genetic father, nor was he married to her genetic or surrogate mothers. He also argued that he hadn't supported the child-creation process from the beginning. 5) claimed that he had been all for the creation of the child until some point after her conception, and had evidence to back that up. Nevertheless, the main question at the heart of the case was, who were this child's legal parents? (Note: 3) also sued for custody of her.)
While a lower court found that 5) should not be named father of the child, the California Supreme Court reversed that decision, awarding him full parental responsibilities (and rights). The court's argument was that, in this case, the people who had commissioned creation of the child - an action without the child would not exist - were that child's legal parents. (California law also holds that surrogates - who have signed official agreements - who are not genetically related to the children they bear have no custodial rights, so 3) didn't succeed.) 5) ended up with custody of the girl.
Anyway, I'm far, FAR from being a legal expert, but it seems to me that this case isn't a bad precedent to use in this age of brave new reproduction. If the state is going to go out of its way to find people to whom to assign legal responsibilities for parenthood, those responsibilities should come with rights attached. If you make a decision to conceive a child with someone who will parent that child along with you - wake up when the child cries, change the child's diapers, help with the child's homework - then, barring situations of abuse, you and your child are connected to that other person for a minimum of 18 years.
(Note: There's also an ongoing case of a lesbian couple in which one woman bore a child conceived with the egg of the other one...and is now, post-breakup, arguing that the child's genetic mother never intended to play a full parental role! Yeah, RIGHT. The genetic mother hasn't seen the child in years. A case with a somewhat happier outcome: A man who started out life as a woman and then "transitioned" married a woman, adopted her child, and fathered that child along with another that the woman bore conceived with the sperm of the man's brother. When they got divorced, she tried to sever his parental rights, arguing that he wasn't the "real" father. The courts felt otherwise.)
April 16th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
[...] To learn more, see my blog posts Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment, Part I & Part II. [...]
April 16th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
[...] LESBIAN MOM DESCRIBES HOW SHE GOT DAD TREATMENT PART II [...]
April 18th, 2008 at 3:46 am
[...] into misogyny. "I'm in Janet Jenkins' corner on this one all the way," he says. I'm a little creeped out to think I'm in that corner with [...]
April 18th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
[...] into misogyny. "I'm in Janet Jenkins' corner on this one all the way," he says. I'm a little creeped out to think I'm in that corner with [...]
April 30th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
[...] 2008); In Defense of Janet Jenkins, Lesbian Mom, Glen Sacks, Mens News Daily (April 16, 2008); and Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment, Part II, Glen Sacks (February 6, [...]