Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My thanks to GuyNTexas for, once again, doing the heavy lifting in this thread, although no one should be shocked that a open sexual pervert is sexually abusing a child.
As for the defenders of this witch and the judge from hell, their attitude tells us all we need to know about the homosexual movement's intentions with respect to children. Case closed.
Some might say the same of you given your uncritical support of the Catholic Church and its conspiracy of child abuse.
If the country and it's "justice" system is too far gone down the perverted sewer for mothers and little girls,
there is nothing left for a pastor to redeem.
More signs of a mental disorder. The very idea that just in the past few years, thousands of years of child bearing, raising history has been set on it's ear, with newly discovered proof that homosexuals make "better" parents than heterosexual biological parents is thoroughly preposterous, and should be recognized as such before allowing the thought to manifest in words.
Of course, on the other hand, you have absolute no trouble feeling that lesbian moms can only be worse than straight ones.
Then you should realize that you are coming across as a bigoted homophobic in this thread.
At least that is your opinion, and the only one that counts in the REAL world it would seem.
Do you know how many people in divorce-type situations hire so-called expert witnesses to testify that their child has been molested by the other parent? Honestly, some of you just live in a vacuum. No the courts were absolutely wrong. The jury was wrong. But the prejudicial source you are getting your information from is totally right. It would be funny, if it weren't so scary.
The article relating to the experts was included in the original link. It states that even the states experts felt that way. You really should read with a more open mind, especially if you choose to resort to name calling to try to elevate your point.
I actually remember this case from back in 2008 when an online poster on usenet posted about her friend Janet Jenkins and how she was being denied visitation.
Here is some information gleaned from the internet and including interviews with Lisa and Janet. It certainly looks to me as if Janet is the more stable parent even if she is not the biological parent.
Lisa and Janet were married in a civil union in 2000. They used an artificial insemination procedure and Miller gave birth to baby Isabella in 2002. She was 17 months old when they broke up. Jenkins court case began after Miller started denying her visitation in 2008 (?).
Janet won in court in both Vermont and Virginia. Jenkins was only asking for visitation rights, not for custody, but Lisa continued to deny that. The parents were equal in terms of finances and emotional availability, but only Jenkins was willing to work something out. In fact, Janet had agreed to and paid child support.
Lisa claimed that Isabella was traumatized by her visits to Jenkins, but it's not uncommon in a bitter custody situation for one parent to make false allegations about the other.
The social worker actually did not say that visitation should be denied, but said that the parent rather than the child should be the one to travel during the school year. I read the pdf.
This pastor arranged to take the child and her mother out of the country.
If a man does this, he is subject to sanctions, but it is still very difficult to get the child returned depending upon the country.
I do think that it would be very difficult for Isabella who is now 10 to be transferred to the custody of a parent she does not know. Also, Isabella has been brainwashed into Christianity by a mother who seems relatively unstable if you look at her biography and what she experienced herself as a child.
Her parents divorced when she was 7 and she began taking speed at that young age.
She first identified herself as lesbian in 1994 supposedly pushed by psychiatrists at the hospital where she had been hospitalized for alcohol addiction.
She had a suicide attempt due to alcohol, pills, food addictions and her failed marriage.
Her mother was mentally ill and apparently had multiple personalities. She claims she was physically and sexually abused by her mother.
She claims her relationship with Jenkins was only physical a few times a year. She also lived with another woman for two years and another for a few months prior to meeting Janet Jenkins.
"We chose a sperm donor, an anonymous donor, from a California cryobank that has all my traits -- eye color, hair color, skin tone, down to spicy foods, favorite foods, intelligence level," said Jenkins. "The one thing that we did give our child that neither one of us had was the donor was tall, and Lisa and I are both five-two, so we thought, 'We'll give her an edge.' But other than that, you know, we wanted our child to look like both of us, and she does."
"I was told I never had to adopt her as long as she was born within our legal, civil union, just like a married couple," said Jenkins. "Why would you adopt your children? ... It's just like any couple that cannot have a child, it would be like if I was a man and I didn't have the sperm count to impregnate my wife, I would go to an anonymous donor as well. I wanted to have children."
Perhaps you should read things other than your sources that reaffirm your bigotry.
And you should also realize that what you are justifying would only reify the unethical tactics that disturbed individuals, like the kidnapper in this case, use because of their own hate in the break-up of a marriage/civil union.
The TOS prevents me from being completely open with my thoughts. So I'll just stick to the facts:
The person you call the "kidnapper" is the legitimate B I O L O G I C A L - M O T H E R who gave birth to this child.
The alleged "wronged individual" has no biological connection to this child, an no legal right that should be recognized by a legitimate court, anymore so than a non-biologically related live in boyfriend of a heterosexual relationship would be granted parental rights by a court. It's the same damned thing as granting this lesbian "parental visitation". There was no legal "adoption" conferring those rights, and no sperm from her involved in the child's creation.
You show your extreme bias and disregard for the child by insisting that the defense experts testifying to clear signs of emotional trauma are perjuring themselves under oath, as is the mother, and the family friends, all because they have it out for the lesbian. And that the child's claims I guess were coaxed by the "kidnapper", and all of the signs of emotional stress and trauma are manufactured lies .... BASED ON WHAT EVIDENCE other than your biased, irrational defense of this likely child molester? I'll tell you .. you have NOTHING to base that on except your willingness to believe the molester and not the several witnesses testifying under oath.
This is a classic example of the repeated behavior of homosexuals and their apologists who come running in defense of child molesters when the accused act is same sex molestation. It never fails ... you don't give a squat about children, and that's why the disgust with you is growing ... not because the disgusted are bigots, but because your attitudes and behavior is disgusting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
