
A family court judge in Vermont will decide after a hearing whether to penalize a Virginia woman who failed to comply with a child-custody ruling that grew out of the breakup of her civil union. More than two years ago, Judge William Cohen found Lisa Miller-Jenkins in contempt of court for failing to comply with his order granting temporary visitation to Janet Miller-Jenkins, her former partner.
Following that ruling, Lisa Miller-Jenkins argued the case should be heard in Virginia. Last month the Vermont supreme court rejected her argument and sent the case back to family court, saying Vermont has exclusive jurisdiction. "The Vermont supreme court was specific in its remand on the contempt finding of this court to impose a penalty, and that needs to be addressed," Cohen said in court Tuesday.
Cohen did not set a date for the hearing, although he said he would like to schedule it within the next month or two. Cohen said he would delay the hearing until after the supreme court rules on a motion by Lisa Miller-Jenkins's attorneys asking the high court to reconsider its August ruling.
The attorney for Janet Miller-Jenkins, Theodore Parisi, said after Tuesday's hearing that he was not sure what penalty he would ask the court to impose. Lisa Miller-Jenkins's Vermont attorney, Judy Barone, said she didn't know if her client would attend a Vermont hearing.
The women left Virginia and went to Vermont in 2000 to get a civil union. They returned home, where Lisa was artificially inseminated and gave birth to a baby girl, Isabella. Later they moved to Vermont, where they lived together a little more than a year before splitting. Courts in Virginia have ruled the state has jurisdiction in the custody case and that its laws banning same-sex marriage control it, Barone said. Many legal observers expect the underlying custody case eventually to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Barone also said she didn't know what would happen if a Vermont court penalized her client with her client remaining in Virginia. "I'm not a Virginia lawyer, so I can't comment on that," she said. (AP)
These comments are reproduced as written by visitors to this Web site. They have not been edited for content, grammar, or spelling. The viewpoints appearing here are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or views of advocate.com, The Advocate, or its affiliates.
Be the first to comment on this story.
If you would like to submit a comment for posting, please fill out the form above.
All comments submitted via this form are subject to posting or publication. (To send a private letter to an Advocate editor or writer, please use the e-mail button at the top of the page, or use snail mail.) If you would like your comment considered for publication in The Advocate magazine, please include your full name, your city of residence, and a phone number where you can be reached during business hours so that we can confirm your identity. Your e-mail address and telephone number are strictly confidential and will not be shared or used for any purpose other than to contact you about your comment.
See the Contact page for sending comments for reasons other than responding to Advocate editorial and news stories.
Please note that comments sent by fax or snail mail are unlikely to be posted, although they will be considered for publication along with all letters received via e-mail or via this Web page. Comments that chiefly concern Advocate.com content will be considered for posting only on the Web site. The Advocate reserves the right to edit submitted comments for grammar, spelling, obscenities, or libel; we will, however, do our best to preserve the original comment's style and intent. Comments considered for publication in The Advocate magazine may also be edited for length.