Isabella Miller-Jenkins – a typical family abduction case

There has been quite a lot of articles written about the case of Isabella Miller-Jenkins. The angle the news media keeps playing up is “lesbian child custody debate.” This is literally true in that Isabella has two mothers as parents, Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller, and that there had been a custody dispute between them. (They were married in a civil union in Vermont and separated several years later.)

However, despite the “novel and unusual” spin the media has put on it, it’s at its heart a typical family abduction case. Miller apparently engaged in a pattern of alienation against Jenkins which ultimately led to Jenkins being awarded custody of Isabella. Miller was supposed to turn her over to Jenkins on January 1, but instead fled with Isabella. There is now a local arrest warrant for her. Jenkins is just another left-behind parent. She has stated she worries about Isabella constantly and wonders if she is safe and well.

As gays and lesbians get much-needed rights in today’s society, they will marry and have families. Inevitably some will divorce, and there will be some custody battles like this one. But it’s not new, not novel, and just another part of the general problem of family abduction. this!

9 Responses so far »

  1. 1

    Anne said,

    May 20, 2010 @ 4:41 pm

    I don’t see why this is an issue. Homosexuals are not able to reproduce on their own. Why do they feel they must take other people’s kids? The courts are wrong in saying that, by default, the “spouse” of a biological parent is the child’s “other parent.” Lisa Miller is the only mother here. Janet Jenkins did not give birth to Isabella, or contribute in any way to her DNA. She also didn’t adopt her.

    It’s a shame that they had to go into hiding just to be left alone. As a mother, it’s Lisa’s right to decide if she doesn’t want her daughter growing up with homosexual influences.

  2. 2

    forthelost said,

    May 20, 2010 @ 4:58 pm

    You’re saying homosexuals can’t reproduce on their own in a post about a woman who gave birth to a child while married to another woman. (Yes, I know you mean “biologically with the other partner” but lots of heterosexual couples can’t do that either.)

    If Lisa Miller didn’t want her child to grow up with a homosexual parent, she shouldn’t have had a child while married to another woman. And no one is taking someone else’s kid. Isabella’s father is an anonymous sperm donor. That person legally has no rights and knew that if he donated his sperm it would be used to father a child he would not know.

    If a parent divorces and the other parent is, say, Catholic, does the parent have a right to bar their child from seeing the Catholic parent if the other parent has joined a religion that says Catholicism is of the devil?

  3. 3

    Gary Stephens said,

    June 4, 2010 @ 6:18 pm

    The little girl is just being used to promote the Gay-Lesbian agenda. Jenkins didn’t even care about the girl until Lambda got involved. Lisa Miller realized that being gay is only a choice.

  4. 4

    forthelost said,

    June 4, 2010 @ 6:36 pm

    I’ll use my Catholicism example again. Let’s say mom and dad divorce. They’re both Catholic at the time. One parent later converts to a form of Christianity that says Catholicism is of the devil. Does that parent have the right to barr access to the other parent due to their differences in belief about religion?

  5. 5

    Zuza said,

    February 17, 2015 @ 4:04 pm

    If your mother decided to give another mommy then I would say your father would have a moral obligation to prevent his offspring being corrupted. Without being fire and brimstone about it so as not to cause an impassioned debate I have only this to say. If mankind’s creator had intended same sex coupling then he,she,or it wouldn’t have made an opposite sex then made natural reproduction possible only through opposite pairing. Mrs. Miller needed a little something extra to create the child in question that was impossible for Mrs. Jenkins to give and adding that with the fact the child since age 1 was raised in a Christian environment by the woman whose DNA is actually in her this case should not exist. The real outrage should be that a flight like this was necessary to preserve the stability of this child’s happy life within this environment. Instead she was treated like a little prized show pony to promote an alternative lifestyle ,unnecessarily stressed by the constant threat of losing her stability, and finally driven from her own homeland. That a 3rd world nation had more decency than the United States and it’s a crying shame.

  6. 6

    forthelost said,

    February 17, 2015 @ 4:22 pm

    So infertile people shouldn’t get treatment? If they’d been intended to reproduce they’d be able to? And people shouldn’t adopt because DNA is prime?

    Isabella wasn’t driven from her home. She was kidnapped.

  7. 7

    End of This System Is Near said,

    November 27, 2015 @ 2:16 am

    It is a shame what this poor child has been put through. The only people who were concerned about her emotional and psychological well being were her biological mother and religious community. Isabella is not biologically related to her mother’s former partner,was not legally adopted by her mother’s former partner, and the state of Virginia where she was born and spent nearly all of her life did not recognize same sex relationships in any legal since. Isabella’s place of habitual residence was never Vermont, but Virginia,which as was previously mentioned did not give any clout to same sex relationships. To advance a then much contested political agenda the legal system basically held this child in unnecessary turmoil for years to serve as a mascot ie “same sex marriage IS REAL,this child is gonna have two mamas whether she needs or wants another mother because that’s how we do things in our lifestyle, and by gosh you’re gonna accept that no matter what we have to do!” By the time Lisa and Isabella fled the United States,the formerly happy outgoing little child was on the verge of a mental breakdown thanks to needless harassment,interference,and scrutiny by supposed do gooders and subversive zealots. Strangely the aggressors were silent about their little prized show pony’s deteriorating mental state. Had this been a heterosexual relationship and the aggressive former partner a man without any biological or legal ties then we would have handed the biological mother innumerable restraining orders and thrown the partner up under the jail a long time ago. We would applaud the natural mother for packing up and getting out of dodge. The Jenkins v. Miller case had nothing to do with the child in question’s best interests and everything to do with advancing a political agenda. It is a sign of these wicked times we live in.

  8. 8

    Celeste Keenan said,

    November 25, 2018 @ 11:15 pm

    But Zuza Isabella was the result of IVF, Invetro Fertilization, which means that whoever donated the materials to create this child will never be involved in her life unless he goes to court and fights both mothers for visitation.
    It’s not up to Lisa to decide what’s appropriate for Isabella and what isn’t. That’s up to the courts to decide and the courts in Vermont decided that Janet Jenkins is legally the girl’s co-mother.

  9. 9

    Celeste Keenan said,

    November 25, 2018 @ 11:23 pm


    It’s not up to any of us to decide what’s appropriate for a child and what isn’t appropriate.
    Lisa chose to break the law and illegally remove Isabella from the area. The allegations against Janet Jenkins were only thrust upon her just as she was about to receive custody of her daughter.
    I don’t know how anybody can support Lisa Miller’s illegal activities that were designed to further alienate Isabella from her other mother?
    You should see the language that was written on that website that was posted to Isabella’s anniversary post. It sounds like she was coached to say those things about her co-mother.

Comment RSS · TrackBack URI

Say your words