LESBIAN TRYING TO SNATCH CHRISTIAN MOMS BABY
After childhood abuse led Lisa Miller into a dysfunctional life of multiple addictions and homosexuality, at long last, by the grace of God, she found the Christian faith, freedom from her former bondage and real hope.
She left behind the lesbian lifestyle in which she had lived as “spouse” to another woman in a same-sex “civil union.”
And Lisa dedicated the rest of her life to raising her little daughter, Isabella, to whom she had given birth during her brief homosexual cohabitation, having conceived through artificial insemination.
A bright and hopeful ending to a sad story, right? Redemption and love. Innocence regained.
Except for one thing.
The judge demanded that Lisa allow her former lesbian partner, Janet Jenkins, to have unsupervised visits with little Isabella.
But the court-ordered visits were severely traumatizing the child, at least according to the testimony of experts and eyewitnesses. Isabella’s court-appointed advocate said Jenkins was “turn[ing] her world upside down.” A clinical therapist testified Isabella appeared “traumatized” by her visits with Jenkins, and that “unsupervised visits … could cause permanent damage to normal development.” A social worker testified the little girl “suffers from sleep disturbance and nightmares, having difficulty sleeping through the night,” adding that “Isabella also talks about death, and has expressed fear that if her mother Lisa dies she will be at risk. Without prompting, Isabella has said she is afraid that Janet Jenkins may take her away from Lisa.”
![]() Lisa Miller and her daughter, Isabella (photo courtesy Barbara Curtis) |
It gets worse. Lisa Miller told the court her child had referred to being forced to bathe naked with Jenkins, had begun to touch herself sexually and appeared disturbed and unhappy following visits, according a report by LifeSiteNews, which links to four court affidavits by social workers, therapists and others.
For example, clinical therapist Sylvia Haydash in her affidavit testified as to Isabella’s “extremely regressive behaviors” after visiting with Jenkins, noting that:
… Isabella appears to have been traumatized by the limited visitation thus far [with Jenkins], a serious consequence, taking Isabella in a negative direction as compared to Isabella’s condition before the recent visitations where she was a child that was well-adjusted, flourishing, above-the-curve developmentally, verbally gifted, and readily able to separate from Lisa and meet with other people.
And Lisa Miller told the LifeSiteNews interviewer: “Last year, Isabella put a comb up to her neck and said she wanted to kill herself after one of the visits. She took a comb and pressed it into her neck and said, ‘I want to kill myself.’ … It was immediately after a visit. Other people have seen huge changes. She also started openly masturbating which is not something that my child has done.”
Regarding Isabella, Miller added:
She is six now but this started when she was five – after visits. The very first time that Janet ever saw Isabella after the two and a half years, her very first overnight visit – the court ordered it and I allowed it because it was in Virginia and she was supposed to have been supervised by her parents, Isabella came home and said, “Mommy, will you please tell Janet that I don’t have to take a bath anymore at her house.”
I asked her what happened. She said, “Janet took a bath with me.” I asked her if she [Janet] had a bathing suit on. “No, Mommy.” She had no clothes on and it totally scared Isabella. She had never seen this woman except once in two and a half years and she takes a bath with her.
Miller refused to allow any more visits. As her attorney, Liberty Counsel chairman Matthew Staver told WND at the time, regarding Isabella’s visitations with Jenkins: “She began having nightmares, bed-wetting, fears of leaving Lisa and even tried to physically harm herself after just a couple of visitations. After having seen that, Lisa just simply said, ‘I cannot put my child in that situation anymore.’”
In response – are you ready for this? – in 2009 a Vermont judge decided that Lisa Miller must give up her daughter – her own, legal and biological daughter – to her former lesbian partner, who had no biological or adoptive connection to the child. We’re talking full custody.
Lisa Miller’s life – and more to the point, Isabella’s life – has been one of chaos and tumult ever since, complete with charges of “international kidnapping.” I guess that’s what they call it when you leave the country with your child to protect her at all costs from being raised by a lesbian non-relative who, by multiple accounts, is a bad influence on the child, but whom a judge has, incomprehensibly, decreed must have full custody.
Hold on, it gets still worse.
Last Tuesday a federal jury in Vermont convicted an Amish-Mennonite pastor named Kenneth Miller (no relation to Lisa Miller) of helping Lisa flee the country with Isabella to Nicaragua, to avoid having to hand her daughter over to her one-time homosexual partner.
The sympathetic pastor could be facing three years behind bars, but says he’s “willing to accept the consequences” of his actions.
Jenkins meanwhile has also filed a RICO lawsuit not just against this same pastor, but against Liberty University Law School, Thomas Road Baptist Church and others she alleges helped Lisa Miller “kidnap” her own daughter. (As you may remember, RICO prosecutions – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations – were created by the government for the express purpose of busting criminal organizations like the mafia – not churches and pastors.)
Liberty Counsel, a legal team affiliated with Liberty University and that advocates for Christian and religious rights, represented Lisa Miller until she vanished in 2009.
As WND reported Friday, Jenkins is suing Liberty because a student worker allegedly sought donations to help Miller. Jenkins makes similar claims about a member of Thomas Road Baptist Church.
“Outrageously frivolous” is how Staver, who also serves as dean of the university’s law school, characterizes Jenkins’ latest action.
“I don’t know how a church with a 5,000-seat sanctuary can be responsible for the act of one person,” Staver said, calling Jenkins’ lawsuit a “press release filed in federal court.”
According to Jenkins’ RICO lawsuit, “Lisa Miller’s attorneys Mathew Staver and Rena Lindevaldsen also routinely instructed their Law School students that the correct course of action for a person in Lisa Miller’s situation would be to engage in ‘civil disobedience’ and defy court orders.” (Lindevaldsen, also a law prof at Liberty, has published a book about Miller, titled “Only One Mommy: A Woman’s Battle for Her Life, Her Daughter, and Her Freedom: The Lisa Miller Story.”)
In response, Staver says that when Lisa Miller vanished in 2009, she did so without confiding in her legal team: “She never gave anyone indication of her plans. She was counseled to obey the court orders.”
Since then, Miller reportedly first traveled to Canada, then Nicaragua, and may still be living there today with her now-10-year-old daughter.
Now what can we say about this case?
Decent people everywhere are outraged at the sheer perversity of the court system’s rulings in the Lisa Miller case: How can you possibly take a little girl from her biological mother and forcibly give her to a lesbian with no biological or adoptive relationship to the child, and who independent witnesses and experts claim is a destructive influence on the girl’s life? And then, as a result of this judicial blindness, when the mother takes desperate measures to protect her own child, she is deemed an international criminal, and everyone the lesbian plaintiff dreams might have helped the mother is drawn into an ever-expanding legal net.
Have we gone completely mad? Have we lost our humanity as a nation?
In family law, courts always claim as their mandate, first and foremost, to act in the best interests of the child – which is exactly as it should be. In this case, however, the child’s interest has been utterly trampled underfoot in favor of the politically correct “rights” and ungodly agenda of activist homosexuals.
Today’s idiotic and ultimately suicidal national pretense that homosexuality is perfectly normal – that two men or two women can somehow be joined together in holy matrimony, that moral/religious opposition to this perversity renders you a bigot and a criminal, and that justice is somehow served by forcing a Christian mother to turn over her beloved daughter to a litigious homosexual – all this, my friends, is high mockery of God and His laws.
However, “God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7 KVJ)
If we do not change course, America the Exceptional – the freest, most moral, prosperous, blessed and beloved nation on earth, which millions fought and died to protect – will reap the whirlwind of national disintegration and unimaginable suffering.
In fact, it’s already happening. Just ask Lisa Miller.
“I tremble for my country,” said Jefferson, “when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever.”
God bless Lisa and Isabella, wherever they may be – and God bless all those who have helped them.
Top Opinion
-
★Calliope★ 2012/08/20 04:45:01God have mercy on this Judge+21The child. The CHILD.
What is best for THE CHILD.
This is what happens when judges let their bias interfere with a sound decision. And who suffers?
The CHILD.





















She's 10 now, so in 8 years she can spit in that bitch Jenkins face!!
This case it about the kid not about your anti-gay attitudes. Who wrote this piece of crap that attempts to pass for a news article?!
Obviously the biological parent will receive custody and should. It's amazing how many people turn this into a let's trash the gays post. This is a child custody case and nothing more.
Did it ever cross your bigoted mind that she's bisexual or pretending to be straight, which would be lying to God?
The truth of the matter is that Lisa has violated numerous federal laws in regard to this matter. When the two fell apart the Vermont court dissolved the civil union and granted Lisa custody with Janet visitation. Lisa in violation of the court order continuously denied Janet visitation. The only reason the child went two years without seeing Janet was because Lisa constan...
The truth of the matter is that Lisa has violated numerous federal laws in regard to this matter. When the two fell apart the Vermont court dissolved the civil union and granted Lisa custody with Janet visitation. Lisa in violation of the court order continuously denied Janet visitation. The only reason the child went two years without seeing Janet was because Lisa constantly violated the court ordered visitation. Needless to say during this time she poisoned the child's mind against Janet. Lisa not being happy with the Vermont ruling found a Virginia court that gave her custody and denied Janet visitation under Virginias anti-gay marriage law. This was appealed to the Virginia Court of Appeals which ruled that under federal law Virginia must respect the Vermont ruling giving Janet visitation rights. The federal parental kidnapping act makes it clear that court orders regarding custody and visitation enacted in one state must be enforced in other states as well. In this case the Virginia Court of Appeals rightly recognized that federal law protects parents against the very thing Lisa did-shopping around for a court to grant them sole custody.
This case is not about an evil Lesbian and a good Christian, it is about a women who has constantly defied the law and used Christianity and anti-gay religious groups to spin it to being about how Christians are being denied their children by the horrible gays. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I only skimmed the article, since it was written haphazardly and hard to read, but there are a couple of questions it brings up (some of these might be answered by the article):
1) why did the judge order full custody to the other mother? This is unusual, and it suggests that the original mother's story may not have been the full story. It is not impossible that the first mother (like many in nasty separation/divorce cases) has manipulated facts to make it sound like she is the good guy... or perhaps the second mother has done the same and is just better at maneuvering the legal system.
2) What does sexual orientation have to do with this case AT ALL???? Clearly, the two moms were in a relationship. It ended badly. They both wanted custody of the child. Even though the child is *biologically* related to only one parent, they both have certain rights. The fight got nasty, and the child is caught in the middle.
One, or possibly both, of the parents in this case is doing rotten things. Often, judges are able to sift through the mess and develop a successful ...
I only skimmed the article, since it was written haphazardly and hard to read, but there are a couple of questions it brings up (some of these might be answered by the article):
1) why did the judge order full custody to the other mother? This is unusual, and it suggests that the original mother's story may not have been the full story. It is not impossible that the first mother (like many in nasty separation/divorce cases) has manipulated facts to make it sound like she is the good guy... or perhaps the second mother has done the same and is just better at maneuvering the legal system.
2) What does sexual orientation have to do with this case AT ALL???? Clearly, the two moms were in a relationship. It ended badly. They both wanted custody of the child. Even though the child is *biologically* related to only one parent, they both have certain rights. The fight got nasty, and the child is caught in the middle.
One, or possibly both, of the parents in this case is doing rotten things. Often, judges are able to sift through the mess and develop a successful visitation schedule. Sometimes they screw it up badly.
What I think happened is this: the first mom (Lisa) felt bad about the relationship and her sinful life and imparted that information on her child. The other parent (Janet) felt the child was hers, too -- as most parents would, even if the child were not theirs biologically.
By the laws of civil unions, Janet was allowed certain rights. In *straight* civil unions, the same thing occurs, even if the child is only related biologically to one parent.
Was Janet causing significant stress on Isabella? Maybe, or maybe the tension and stress of the situation was the problem. Experts are often good, impartial witnesses, but sometimes they are clearly biased. In this case, the judge felt they were not impartial and appears to have disregarded their advice.
Lisa clearly stated that Janet was misbehaving, but that is VERY COMMON in child custody disputes. Almost always it is made up to make the other parent look bad. Sometimes the parent genuinely believes it even though it is untrue; sometimes it is pure fiction. And sometimes it is real. Judges see this all the time, and they are supposed to know the difference.
The things one parent says about another are REALLY nasty. What Lisa said about Janet was terrible, and if it is true it suggests that Janet is a poor parent model (to put it mildly). But even with a counselor involved, and even with Isabella's testimony, there is substantial doubt as to the accuracy of these claims.
Why? Because case after case has shown that counselors and children can be coached to say (or "discover") false abuse. Does that mean Janet is the good parent here? NO. But it means that Lisa's claims have to be taken with a grain or two of salt.
Clearly Lisa was motivated to remove her daughter from this situation -- whether because she legitimately felt there was a threat, or because she despised Janet. She chose to violate laws in doing so. If she felt Janet REALLY was a risk to Isabella, I understand. But the law does not look kindly on people who violate it.
Likewise, anyone who helped Lisa flee the jurisdiction would be guilty of aiding and abetting a kidnapping.
Remove the inflammatory words from this article and you have a "she-said-she-said" sort of story (like the he-said-she-said's, but with two women). The judge SHOULD be able to find a solution, but it is not always easy. The biological mother is not always right. And barring any other issues, she violated custody.
The author of this article clearly believes that homosexuality is wrong and a perversion, so that clouds his or her judgement... but remove the bells and whistles and this is just a child custody case. A very ugly one.
In the end, the birth mother succeeded in kidnapping her child and fleeing the country. If she truly believed that Janet was in fact sexually abusing her daughter, I understand her reasons... but in my heart of hearts I think she was just repulsed by Janet's orientation and actually MADE UP the stories.
In the America we have a rule of law, which states that the person who is right is not the person who more popular or more respected by others, but the person who is correct and truthful. In that regard, I do not think the judge was wrong -- I think the judge understood the case very well, better than the author of this article.
I pray that all judges are able to determine fitness of parenting based on actions, not accusations, and that judges are able to recognize that sexual orientation is not a perversion nor a factor in determining fitness or unfitness as a parent. ANY accusation of sexual abuse should warrant investigation, and a social worker should be involved... but clearly, the child was kidnapped before any of these steps could have been taken (or perhaps they were taken and the author of this article failed to mention it).
Everyone involved in this case from the natural parents to the ridiculous judge are to be blamed for the abuse of this child.
There is redemption, but it is accompanied by retribution .The thought to change your mind never changes the results of your original decision.
God help this precious child for what she,because of her parents, will have to endure.
Here are the keywords "no biological or adoptive connection to the child. We’re talking full custody."
Taking a bath in the nude with a child you haven't seen in 2.5 years is a strange choice of activities. Why not play board games and make dinner while wearing clothes?
Lisa's attorney is not responsible for her actions and neither is the entire church responsible for the actions of a few members.
The other article does not give any explanation for the Judge in Vermont to take away the child from her mother to give to someone who never adopted and is not related to the child. Now that is bizzare, the ACLU has some explaining to do.
The RICO act? Are you kidding me? If we could use the RICO act so haphazardly then why don't we use it against the organization that assist illegals as well as the mayors of sanctuary cities? They're all breaking the law.
lol, http://abcnews.go.com/US/chri...
"Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins were once in a civil union and Lisa Miller gave birth to Isabella in 2002. The couple lived mostly in Virginia, but they obtained a civil union in Vermont. Lisa Miller filed to dissolve their civil union in 2004."
Did she adopt the child? I can't find any record of it.
that is NOT janet's kid as well
You are less than a moron reaper you are a pitiful punk who resorts to name calling when anyone questions your opinion,which happens to be wrong.
I bring up the father because this is the same scenario in a different sex.
No judge ,no matter how demented ,sees that child as a product of that union.
This train wreak has gone way too far as is