Stunning Victory for Parental Rights and the Family
by Nathan A. Cherry, 07/22/2011
A stunning victory for parental rights and the family took place in Ohio.
Martinsburg, WV – There’s a story I’ve been following for several years now about a former lesbian, Lisa Miller, and her daughter Isabella. Miller was in a lesbian relationship with Janet Jenkins when she decided to have a daughter. Fast forward several years and Isabella is a young girl, and Lisa Miller becomes a born-again Christian. Miller ends the relationship with Jenkins and moves away. Jenkins files suit to have joint-custody of Isabella and a tornado of legal battles ensues.
Unfortunately, activist judges went against precedent in two states, Vermont and Virginia, and awarded join-custody, including unsupervised visits to Jenkins. The problem is that due to Isabella’s behavior after visiting with Jenkins, including depression and talk of suicide, Miller believes her daughter is in harm’s way to visit Jenkins. So Miller disappears with her daughter. And to date the two have not been heard from for nearly two years.
In a new story two women in a lesbian relationship are living together when one of the women, Kelly Mullen, decides to have a baby and list her partner, Michele Hobbs, as a “coparent” on a few documents. Fast forward a couple years and Mullen splits from Hobbs and decides not to let Hobbs have visitation rights. Hobbs decides to file suit for joint custody claiming an “emotional bond” gives her a right to custody.
In a stunning victory for the family the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that half of a one-time lesbian duo is not entitled to custody of the other woman’s child.
This precedent is a detrimental hit to the same-sex “marriage movement and the issue of parental rights. We at the Family Policy Council of West Virginia not only believe the best environment for a child to be raised in is a home with his/her biological mother and father, but, we also believe that biology is the strongest case for parental rights.
We recognize that at times biology isn’t enough for custody; as in the case of abuse or neglect. In these cases a biological parent may be unfit to retain custody and someone else may be needed to serve the best interest of the child. And we recognize that parents that have gone through the legal avenues of adoption are afforded the same rights as biological parents; and as well they should be. However, we firmly believe that when possible, in most cases, biology should trump “emotional bond,” or other non-biological claims to parenthood.
A friend-of-the-court brief was filed by Mathew Staver of Liberty Counsel. After the stunning victory for parents and families Staver made this comment:
“This is a great victory for parental rights. A person who is neither the biological parent nor an adoptive parent cannot be a de facto parent by merely alleging an emotional bond to the child.”
We agree. If emotional bond is all it takes to demand parental rights then it would be easy to anyone to bring suit against another person simply by claiming emotional bond. Even if there was no basis for the case, a suit could be filed and courts would potentially be overrun by frivolous cases. This reasoning is absurd.
“Although Hobbs had no legal basis for custody of the child, Hamilton County Juvenile Court decided that Hobbs should be granted custody, because she acted like a parent and was listed as a ‘coparent’ in a few documents. That ruling was reversed by Juvenile Court Judge Thomas Lipps because, ‘The most important factor in the determination of whether the mother’s words, actions and deeds amounted to a contractual relinquishment of some of her custodial rights was her consistent refusal to enter into a shared custody agreement,’” Liberty Counsel said.
Bottom line is that except for extenuating circumstances biology is always the strongest case for parental rights and custody. And the rights of biological parents should be protected and honored above anything else.
If we start granting parental rights for any number of arbitrary reasons our family courts will be overrun with suits. At that point, fast forward a few years, parental rights don’t exist and minors are wards of the state until they are 18.
Related posts:
