
Virginia's highest court ruled Friday that the state must enforce a Vermont court order awarding child visitation rights to a mother's lesbian former partner.
The Virginia supreme court rejected Lisa Miller's claim that a lower court improperly ignored a Virginia law and a state constitutional amendment that prohibit same-sex unions and the recognition of such arrangements from other states.
The ruling was a victory for Janet Jenkins, who has been fighting for visitation rights since the dissolution of the civil union she and Miller obtained in Vermont in 2000. In 2002, Miller gave birth to the daughter, Isabella, who now is at the center of a legal battle closely watched by national conservative and gay rights groups.
Miller renounced homosexuality and moved back to Virginia with the child after the couple split, and she has fought Jenkins's visitation efforts. However, the Virginia supreme court ruled that a federal law aimed at preventing parents from crossing state lines to evade a custody ruling requires Virginia to enforce Vermont's order.
"I'm relieved that this tug-of-war with my daughter is over," Jenkins said in a statement released by the gay rights group Lambda Legal. "This has been a very long four years. My daughter and I need some time to be together. She needs her other mom."
Miller's attorney, Mathew Staver, said his client "has not lost her courage or her resolve" and will pursue other legal options. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the law school at the late Reverend Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, said he hopes in a new proceeding to raise the issue of Virginia's constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions.
Jenkins's attorney, Joseph R. Price, said the decision "is fully consistent with Virginia, Vermont, and federal law" on child custody and visitation matters.
"More important, the decision means that Isabella will have the support of both her parents as she grows up, and that gay and lesbian parents can expect that they will be treated just like any other parents in a custody dispute, regardless of their sexual orientation," he said.
The Virginia court of appeals twice ruled in favor of Jenkins. Miller's attorneys missed a deadline for appealing the first ruling to the Virginia supreme court, so they filed a second appeal on different grounds. The appellate court ruled that the second case raised no new issues, and the supreme court agreed. In 2006 the Vermont supreme court also ruled in favor of Jenkins.
Miller's supporters were encouraged by a concurring opinion written by Virginia chief justice Leroy R. Hassell Jr., who said he disagreed with the appeals court's first decision but agreed the justices could not consider the merits because the appeal was filed late.
"I see that as a red flag practically begging the attorneys to go back and file again because the issues at question were not considered," said Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues for the conservative Concerned Women for America. "It's a temporary setback, but it's not over." (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.