Sad but Delicious Irony--Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment
January 22nd, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesBehind the recent highly-publicized ruling in a Virginia/Vermont lesbian child custody battle is a sad but delicious irony. As I explained in 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, Danville Register & Bee, 12/22/06, and others):
"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...
"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 Tuesday's 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."
According to details of the case provided in this article in the Washington Blade, a prominent gay newspaper, Miller's actions read like a checklist of what heterosexual women do to the fathers of their children:
1) Move the child far way from the child's noncustodial parent after the divorce or separation--check.
2) Deny the noncustodial parent the opportunity to visit or co-parent the child--check.
3) Make an unsupported, dubious and oh-so-convenient accusation of abuse against the noncustodial parent--check.
4) 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--check.
Other familiar highlights include: the relationship was ended by the child's birth mother, just as most marriages are ended by mothers, not fathers; and the relationship soured because--guess what--the birth mother was hormonal and unstable during and after her pregnancy.
Like most divorced dads, 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.
Echoing the words of millions of divorced fathers, Jenkins says:
"I would rather not be going to court. I had no idea anything like this would happen."
She adds:
“I would never abandon Isabella. She has no power over this situation and didn’t choose it. It is time to behave like adults and do what is best for her. It’s only been about Isabella. I miss her and have high hopes we will be together soon."
As I wrote in the column, "ladies, welcome to the club."
"));
19 queries. 0.784 seconds.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:57 am
Yep, all that happened to me.
Somewhat related, I find it telling how so many self-identified feminists are able to say that women that are for joint custody, (the grandmothers, the new wives, researchers, and now perhaps the "social spouses") have somehow been brain washed and are ignorable.
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:50 am
"Sad but Delicious Irony"
Maybe, it's just sad.
I'm surprised the family courts don't protect Janet Jenkin's custody rights. After all, the judge can't use the "err on the side of caution" excuse since Ms. Jenkins is a woman.
In the spirit of the joke which describes out current family court system, I rhetorically ask, will the radical feminists exalt in their power, if, when homosexual men vie for custody of an adopted child, the judge whips out a ruler to disqualify the larger man?
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:38 pm
It is neither ironic nor sad that the lesbian social mom gets shafted in the same way as many fathers (and, indeed, non-custodial mothers) but it is completely predictable. The equation is very simple, but poorly understood.
In the event of conflict, the court seeks "the best interests of the child". It has long been a core theory of child development that a child must have a strong parent/child relationship with at least one parental figure (it doesn't even have to be a natural parent). This theory is based on very dated, largely Freudian theory, on experience with refugee children from two world wars and on prejudice deriving from living conditions vastly different from those we have today. There is no similar theory or body of thought stating that the child needs a relationship with more than one parent, nor even with natural parents, the clay feet of the accepted theory notwithstanding.
The law and the courts are not, ultimately, complicated thinkers, they take the minimalist step which goes with the flow. They ask a simple question: "what is in the best interest of the child?" and get a simple answer: "one adequate parental figure". Thus custody is assigned to one parent. If there is conflict, the courts will harden on that position for fear of disrupting the overriding motivation that the child have one parental figure in his or her life. The theory is so entrenched, it has become axiomatic.
Thus all the custodial parent, or the parent with the upper hand when it comes to visible, culturally accepted care of the child, has to do to achieve full control of the child is engender conflict. This is positive feedback, all roads lead to the custodial parent and the slope gets steeper at their will. The non-custodial parent is automatically completely helpless. Fighting back will only make things worse. The gender of the non-custodial parent is not relevant.
Shared parenting is the only way out, and it is no good just showing that it is to the child's benefit. One must also attack the existing theory and show that it is based, as it is, on bad science. Many of our world's worst atrocities have been motivated (or excused) by bad science, especially bad science which appeals to ignorant prejudice.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
"Thus all the custodial parent, or the parent with the upper hand when it comes to visible, culturally accepted care of the child, has to do to achieve full control of the child is engender conflict. This is positive feedback, all roads lead to the custodial parent and the slope gets steeper at their will. The non-custodial parent is automatically completely helpless. Fighting back will only make things worse. The gender of the non-custodial parent is not relevant."
Yes! This is the judicial presumption for sole custody!
"The theory is so entrenched, it has become axiomatic."
Yes! This is the way it's been for 130 years. In addition, elected judges now fear the political power of the feminist family law movement. Furthermore, men know that the bias of the family courts is the real power imbalance and so, fathers (many of whom do not have the financial resources to even petition for custody) settle for the amount of custody that the mother allows.
"Shared parenting is the only way out...."
Yes! Automatic sole custody for men is wrong, too. Not only is the two-parent family better for children, but custody bias against men is a human rights issue. I hope that people come to appreciate that judges are human beings with limited powers of discernment. Even with extensive training, many will be influenced by bias and self-interest. The best interests of children is the two-parent family absent clear and strong evidence to the contrary. We must have a legislative presumption for shared parenting.
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:41 am
How long will it be before NOW comes up with umpteen good reasons why lesbian social mums should be more favourably treated than fathers?
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 am
After reading this article along with the comments I am taken back in disbelief that this is even occurring. I have often stated to others I speak to regarding the current mockery of the legal/judicial system as it is today and what it imposes on families daily, the family court system and what it represents is nothing short of misguided, this is not simply a gender specific problem in fact it is much more than this. This process is a state backing out of its own responsibilities backing individuals who cry “Enter accusation of choice” without evidence to impoverish or degrade one individual over another by the use of appropriation of financial abilities from one to give to another. Winner takes all mentality. Not adhering to the mantra “Whets in the best interest of the children”
I would stand aside Miss, Jenkins even without knowing the details of the case. The depravity of losing contact with one’s own child no matter the circumstances cannot be described in words; it is as close to a death in the family or of a child as one can get with out death actually occurring. I can only imagine the pain Miss, Jenkins must feel and what she is being forced to endure as I am also in a very similar situation.
There is simply no excuse for this to be occurring and at the risk or sounding like a broken record I believe that this entire problem is coined in a simple but true statement. Miss Jenkins was the bread winner, she worked hard to support the family unit and did her part to be as involved in her daughters life as one would expect a “Responsible “ parent to be. She earned the money now she must pay!
The simple truth is that because she makes the money she is now being forced into poverty to support her ex’s abuses of Miss Jenkins and in fact their daughter and her ex is using the family court system to accomplish this.
Yes the first step is to support and urge the passing of bills such as the Shard parenting initiative being put before the Legislation and Senate now, but it is only a first step in a long chained of corrections and dissemination of misinformation that need to be made.
I am sorry to hear that this is occurring, it truly is a horrible experience for the non-custodial parent and the child, I wonder how Isabella is taking all this? Good luck Miss Jenkins my heart goes out to you and Isabella.
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
My heart goes out to the daughter and Ms. Jenkins! Sad, sad, sad tale.
JD... on point commentary! Digg +1
January 23rd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
"her ex is using the family court system to accomplish this"
Yes. Excellent point. The family courts are guilty of taking more than half custody away from parents. It's hubris, it's inertia, it's self-interest and it's wrong.
January 25th, 2007 at 4:27 am
I sympathize with Ms. Jenkins. She is obviously more mature than her former partner and should receive custody. Her former partner is using the family court industry like many mothers in heterosexual relationships do in order to strip fathers of their parental rights. The American family unit is in a decline. Until recently, lesbian and gay relationships were shielded from the horrors of the family court industry because they were on the fringes of society and not considered "married" but that is now changing. As ironic as it may seem, it is very possible that unions between gay and lesbian couples that break up will be very instrumental in the future with regard to preserving the American family, as different and diverse as it may be. I wish Ms Jenkins the best.
January 25th, 2007 at 7:00 am
"She is obviously more mature than her former partner and should receive custody."
I disagree. Without clear evidence that the biological mother is a danger to the children, they should each get half custody.
February 18th, 2007 at 6:44 am
[...] 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. [...]
February 18th, 2007 at 6:48 am
[...] Another Lesbian Mom Drives Her Former Partner Out of Their Kids' Lives [...]
February 20th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
[...] Contact « Doug Thorburn on Gavin Newsom Left-Wing Journalist Writes Critical 'Analysis of Mens Rights Activists' » [...]
May 3rd, 2007 at 10:08 am
The comments above against "NOW" and "radical feminists" are so hate-filled and off topic it's appalling. This is not about your hostility toward women, it's about a child who laughed with and was rocked to sleep by a mother she loves and is being denied. That mother is being told she is a legal stranger to the child, unlike a male bio-parent. It is sad when fathers are automatically given fewer custody rights, but NO ONE denies that a child's father is his/her parent. You cannot deny that a person who raises a child from birth is that child's parent, even if there is no genetic link.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Just discovered a complete list of all marked down products at Amazon, sorted by category
and % off, ranging from 50% off to 90% off (thanks Sonja for the effort).
Actually I never thought Amazon would have articles with 90% off, but only in the category
Electronics there are more than 3000 of them - look for yourself, the list is on
http://bargains-hunter.blogspot.com/2008/02/looking-for-marked-down-prices.html
or on http://digg.com/gadgets/Actually_I_never_thought_Amazon_would_have_articles_with_90
(which is a blog of a woman who specializes in finding good deals at Amazon, like Britain’s "Jeanie").
April 16th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
[...] learn more, see my blog posts Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment, Part I & Part [...]
April 16th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
[...] LESBIAN MOM DESCRIBES HOW SHE GOT DAD TREATMENT PART I [...]
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
[...] learn more, see my blog posts Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment, Part I & Part [...]
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
[...] learn more, see my blog posts Lesbian Mom Describes How She Got the Dad Treatment, Part I & Part [...]
April 28th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Social-parents, god-parents or any other types of parent are not the same as biological parents. To pretend they are is a denial of the forces of genetic evolution and a subtle way of undermining the role of the father and the depth of our emotional ties to our blood relations - however much the PC descendants of the Frankfurt Institute wish the world was otherwise.
Siblings inadvertently marrying each other, as was in the news recently, is just the tip of the titanic iceberg that will pop the West's social rivets if biological ties are to be relegated to the same status as a presence around the birthing bed.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Rob says: "Social-parents, god-parents or any other types of parent are not the same as biological parents. To pretend they are is a denial of the forces of genetic evolution and a subtle way of undermining the role of the father and the depth of our emotional ties to our blood relations - however much the PC descendants of the Frankfurt Institute wish the world was otherwise."
What utter nonsense. So you want to undermine the role of the father who raises a child conceived through sperm donation? Remember, the CDC estimates that 10% of men trying to have kids are infertile. If they and their wives choose to conceive using a sperm donor those infertile dads have 100% legal, ethical, moral and social rights and responsibilities as the real father. Yes, kids deserve to know their genetic make-up but don't demean men who are secure and masculine enough to do what it takes to become the real father to their kids -- the ones who teach and nurture those kids, not just the person who contributes a sperm sample for $50.
April 28th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Rob said: "Siblings inadvertently marrying each other, as was in the news recently, is just the tip of the titanic iceberg that will pop the West's social rivets if biological ties are to be relegated to the same status as a presence around the birthing bed."
Rob, you appear to be a huge drama queen. Take a deep breath, people are clever enough to adapt to new things. Better yet, take care of your own family and quit trashing the families of loving parents.
Guess what, half-siblings have married or dated each other for centuries. You know why? Because people cheat on their spouses. Lots of kids unknowingly have genetic fathers who are different from their legal fathers because of infidelity. What we need to do is be smart enough to adjust to the REALITY of people having children through assistive fertility treatment. Put the legal parents on the birth certificate, and note the donor number if donor sperm or eggs were used. That makes it simple to honor one's real parents (those who raise the child) while truthfuily letting a child know exactly who the donor was.
For a long time there has been secrecy around sperm donation beause some insecure men thought they were less manly if they shot blanks. Now we know it's purely a medical issue and easily solved. An nfertile dad can be a parent if he is secure enough to use a donor. Those men absolutely deserve the right to be dads, not because they just "stand around a birthing bed" but because they step up and are fathers to their kids -- no matter how those kids joined their families. If you think that's a less legitimate way to be a father than just impregnating a bunch of women and walking away from your biological offspring I pray you never lose your virginity to a woman. Or, God forbid, find yourself around a birthing bed.
April 29th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Recognising the importance of genetic inheritance is not the same thing as rejecting the role of father figure, donore3. Both can be respected - but that doesn't make them the same thing. Confusing the two roles in an attempt to eliminate the difference is doomed to failure because genetics matters and no amount of 'clever adapting to new things' is going to change that - at least with current technology.
Parental investment is a key feature of successful human reproduction. Nothing is ever flawless, of course, but cultures that promote philanderers or non-investors to sire an excessive proportion of future generations are likely to lose out to the ones that don't.
I'm sorry if that makes you feel less than perfect but the good news is that the real world can cope with a few exceptions. That doesn't, however, make a special case - however noble - the exact same thing as a norm.
April 29th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Hi Rob
Thanks for the 25-cent psychoanalysis but your opinion does not make me feel imperfect. I am not an infertile man or a sperm donor, I just happen to work with adoptive and infertile families. Thus I know from research and empiracle observation that your opinion on this matter is not accurate.
Children of adoption or gamete donation who are raised with honesty and good communication know that their parents are the people raising them. Those who feel diminished are the kids whose parents lie to them or who are surrounded by negative opinions from those who thinks genetics make the parent. Many children are curious about their donors or birth parents but the healthy ones know who their real parents are.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:27 pm
That genetic parentage is not the same as social parentage is not an opinion, it's a fact, donore3. However many social parents may have been involved in the raising of you and your ancestors the only genetic influences you carry are those of your biological ancestors. In as much as you are influenced by your genes, therefore, your biological ancestors' influence on you is significant. Attempting to remove the difference by pretending social parenting is completely equivalent to biological parenting, if you could ever get such a thing to work for long, would quickly produce a race of reproductive cheats. That said, a few exceptions don't matter too much, as long as its not too many.
None of this is inconsistent with some children respecting their social parents. It is not an either/or dichotomy - unless you try to make it one by going so overboard in your desire to respect everyone that you refuse to recognise the importance of biology. If you go down that route then you're taking on Nature - and she's pretty hot at biology.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:52 pm
"That genetic parentage is not the same as social parentage is not an opinion, it's a fact, donore3." The writers who equate ejaculation with parentage are fascinatingly ignorant. Do you know ANYONE who is adopted? Genetic heritage is not the same as parentage. Why would you cheapen the word "parent" by equating a sperm donor with a parent? My genetic heritage comes from my ancestors, for instance from my grandparents, but they are not my parents.
Children who were conceived through egg or sperm donation can know absolutely every medical fact about their donors' genetic background, and they should. That does not make the donors their parents. I am not suggesting that children consider everyone their parents. I am stating the fact that children view their parents as the people who parent them.
What is "social parenting" anyway? You are pretending that children see anyone who is involved in their lives as a parent. A parent is someone who raises a child as part of a nuclear family, whether or not s/he is genetically related to the child. This isn't just semantics, it is a legal, and for those who actually care about children, a moral distinction.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:55 am
donore3 said: "What is social parenting, anyway?".
It is performing the social functions of a parent without the foundation of a direct genetic contribution. There are many examples of why this is not the same as genetic parenting. Social parents are much more likely to abuse, for example. And check out your local maternity hospital's procedures to make sure mother and child are not mixed up if you doubt that the 'law and morals' disregard the importance of genetic parentage. Only when it comes to the father do they do that.
May 3rd, 2008 at 5:59 am
Oops. For "...if you doubt that the 'law and morals' disregard the importance of genetic parentage" please read "...if you believe that the 'law and morals' disregard the importance of genetic parentage".
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:26 am
Silly me. This is a website for bitter divorced dads. Of course you are going to devalue the parenting of anyone who isn't genetically related to the child. But I have not been discussing families reconfigured by divorce, but rather those created by choice, from scratch. Of course children who have bonded with their genetic father need a continued relationship to him. Those who have instead been raised by parents who are not their blood relatives have bonded to those parents, who are actually better parents than the average bio-parent.
And while you claim that "social parents are much more likely to abuse" without citing any sort of facts, here is the truth about families created by those who are not genetically related to the child: they have been scientifically demonstrated to be BETTER parents than someone who is genetically related to his/her child. This research finding is clearly applicable to parents who conceive using donor eggs and sperm since that is an even more expensive and difficult option. Unlike you, I will show the actual research from MSNBC's website:
"updated 7:04 p.m. ET, Mon., Feb. 12, 2007
NEW YORK - Adoptive parents invest more time and financial resources in their children than biological parents, according to a new national study challenging arguments that have been used to oppose same-sex marriage and gay adoption.
The study, published in the new issue of the American Sociological Review, found that couples who adopt spend more money on their children and invest more time on such activities as reading to them, eating together and talking with them about their problems.
“One of the reasons adoptive parents invest more is that they really want children, and they go to extraordinary means to have them,” Indiana University sociologist Brian Powell, one of the study’s three co-authors, said in a telephone interview Monday."
May 4th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
The Indiana University paper MSNBC reference, donore3, sets out quite clearly that most studies show that the traditional, two-biological-parent family operates in the best interests of children. The paper investigates this consensus in very, very specific circumstances. It focuses solely on the level of parental investment (i.e. one input measure rather than an array of output measures) by two-adoptive-parent families (not the type of family that this thread was originally about) and only on young children. It concludes not that, as you say: parents "not genetically related to the child... have been scientifically demonstrated to be BETTER parents than someone who is genetically related to his/her child" but that, in the studies own words: 'two-adoptive-parent families invest at similar levels as two-biological-parent families' in some very specific situations and circumstances.
The interesting aspect of the paper is that this result seems surprising bearing in mind the great weight of evidence and broad consensus about the overall benefits to a child's interests of being raised in a traditional two-biological-parent family. Hopefully the paper will lead to more research and a better understanding of the precise dynamics of different family structures in different situations and circumstances. None of that is really likely to undermine the overall consensus, though, as it is very well founded in research.
I guess that you are not really familiar with the topic and have not actually read the paper in question, else you would have known about all these other studies. If that is so I suggest you read it. You will find that there are more than enough references in it to point you to work that will show you why it is that most experts agree that, of all the different forms of family, the two-biological-parent family appears to operate in the overall best interests of children.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Rob, one thing I learned early is that folks like you who reflexively and defensively object to clear research findings (as in the IU paper) reveal their biases and agendas, as you have. Clearly you have a personal stake in protesting that the only "real" parents are those genetically related to the children they are raising. Anyone who has a family member gained through adoption or conceived through donor gametes knows what many scientifically valid studies have already proven: genetics don't dictate how a parent feels about his/her child. Many, many parents resent their genetic "accidents", either openly or secretly. Adoptive parents, and users of reproductive technologies, all of whom have jumped through every possible hoop to create their families, rarely do.
Many people say "I was an accident" but no one conceived with donor eggs or sperm has ever said that. Lots of people know "I'm the youngest in my family because my parents [got drunk / bought a waterbed / didn't realize the vasectomy wasn't successful]" but kids who are adopted never say that.
It is glaringly obvious that you have a personal investment here, be it that your marriage was broken by divorce, you are a religious zealot who feels that others must share your views or simply that you cherish your ignorance too much to understand that other people have life experiences that are different from yours but equally valid.
You obviously do not read the Journal of Pediatric Psychology. While I could cite myriad studies proving you wrong, you have done what those whose self-esteem is tied up in their opinions and denied clear scientific fact. No amount of evidence can affect you because you are too invested in the world being flat. Good bye, and good luck negotiating a new world which is quickly passing you by.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:57 am
So, you'd rather bluster than actually read the IU research paper you quoted, donore3. A pity. It doesn't wash to pretend there are 'myriad other' studies that prove your case without quoting them, and when the very one you chose to quote so clearly doesn't.
Here are a couple of the relevant sentences taken directly from the IU paper:
The IU paper questions how this works in one specific and apparently anomalous situation, as I have explained before, but it doesn't 'prove the consensus wrong', as you suggest it does. Unfortunately for your contention it does almost exactly the opposite, both directly but also by omission.
You clearly feel very strongly that reproductive donor'ing is a good thing, BETTER even (your shouting) than natural reproduction. I don't agree, although I have no difficulty with it in small doses. It is not a natural mechanism so you are likely to have a lot of hard work to do to convince other people that your view is right. Overstating your case, making ad hominem attacks, blustering when shown to be in error and shutting your eyes to observable differences is a very unpromising way to approach your chosen campaign - which, incidentally, has very little to do with the original thread here.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:00 am
Not sure what happened to make those study sentences disappear, maybe it was the character I surrounded them by. Let's see if inverted commas work any better:
"The... consensus among some social scientists [is] that the traditional, two-biological-parent household is in the best interests of children (for evidence of this consensus, see Amato 2005; Amato and Keith 1991; Case, Lin, and McLanahan 2000, 2001; Popenoe 1993, 1999; Sun 2003).… For example, Amato (2005) asserts that, The weight of the evidence strongly suggests that growing up without two biological parents in the home increases children’s risk of a variety of cognitive, emotional, and social problems.'."
May 27th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Now, lesbians and gay men will get a sample of what straight men experience in divorce and family court.