• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lesbian awarded custody of Christian's only child

Once again, Jenkins did not get custody of the kid. The headline in the opening post was inaccurate, inflammatory, and bogus.

Since then, custody has been awarded to Ms Jenkins. That is where you are getting confused.
 
I found evidence that child support was ordered, as well.

Woman ordered to pay support: Rutland Herald Online

There's a formal order. That does not necessarily mean that Janet has not been paying it. A formal child support order is part of the paperwork for other situations, as well. If the Millers are applying for any public assistance, for instance, a formal child support order would be filed with the state just as part of the paperwork.

In any case, if Lisa Miller sought child support, it's pretty dishonest to turn around and try to claim that Janet Jenkins is not legally the parent when a custody decision does not go her way.
 
There's a formal order. That does not necessarily mean that Janet has not been paying it. A formal child support order is part of the paperwork for other situations, as well. If the Millers are applying for any public assistance, for instance, a formal child support order would be filed with the state just as part of the paperwork.

In any case, if Lisa Miller sought child support, it's pretty dishonest to turn around and try to claim that Janet Jenkins is not legally the parent when a custody decision does not go her way.

While I think that the Vermont decision is still politically motivated, ordering Jenkins to pay child support does give them a little credibility.
 

It appears you are right. I hate when that happens.

The timeline is as follows:

Jenkins was ordered to pay child support on January 14, 2007. Obviously, she didn't have custody at that time.

Jenkins was awarded visitation rights on October 27, 2008 (my link) apparently, the mother did not honor that award.

Therefore, on November 21, 2009: (your link)

After finding Miller in contempt of court earlier this year for denying Jenkins access to Isabella, Cohen said he decided the only way to ensure the child equal access to both parents was to switch custody.

And in December of 2009, the (admittedly not bogus) but still inflammatory headline was published:
Lesbian awarded custody of Christian's only child

So, you're right. My link is from before custody was changed. It seems the judge switched custody because the order to allow visitation rights was not honored.
 
It appears you are right. I hate when that happens.

The timeline is as follows:

Jenkins was ordered to pay child support on January 14, 2007. Obviously, she didn't have custody at that time.

Jenkins was awarded visitation rights on October 27, 2008 (my link) apparently, the mother did not honor that award.

Therefore, on November 21, 2009: (your link)



And in December of 2009, the (admittedly not bogus) but still inflammatory headline was published:


So, you're right. My link is from before custody was changed. It seems the judge switched custody because the order to allow visitation rights was not honored.

It's all good. No sweat.
 
Once again, I'm glad. If for no other reason, because the father was a Xian.
 
Once again, I'm glad. If for no other reason, because the father was a Xian.

Okay, that's ridiculous reasoning. The best interests of the child should trump all. If both women had filled a parental role, Ms. Jenkins had been pursued for child support, clearly she was viewed as a parent. Violating court-ordered visitation is one thing that will almost ALWAYS get courts to overturn a settlement. The child has a right to both parents.
 
Okay, that's ridiculous reasoning. The best interests of the child should trump all. If both women had filled a parental role, Ms. Jenkins had been pursued for child support, clearly she was viewed as a parent. Violating court-ordered visitation is one thing that will almost ALWAYS get courts to overturn a settlement. The child has a right to both parents.

Well, no, not always. Let's don't give the system too much credit here.
 
Once again, I'm glad. If for no other reason, because the father was a Xian.

LOL

Stop trolling.

Your trying to piss someone off aren't you?
 
Back
Top Bottom