Standing for the Lord: “Many seek the ruler’s favor, but justice for man comes from the Lord” Proverbs 29:26
To view this document please click on the following link:
janet_s_proposed_final_order1.pdf
This document is difficult to read due to the emotional nature of what Janet is asking for. This document was approved by Janet and sent by her lawyers to the Rutland Family Court in Vermont. In it Janet asks for full legal and physical custody of my daughter, including all religious determinations.
"Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord and whose trust is in the Lord. For he will be like a tree planted by the water, that extends its roots by a stream and will not fear when the heat comes. but its leaves will be green. And it will not be anxious in a year of drought nor cease to yield its fruit"
Jeremiah 17:7-8
 | Rachel on Writing letters to the Ju… |
 | Eleanor I. on Call to Action: How You can… |
| Rachel on Testimony |
 | speakkindness on Call to Action: How You can… |
| Eleanor I. on Call to Action: How You can… |
It seems to me that the contract was very reasonable and gave provisions for both parents to have time with the child. This seems fair to both people. Why don’t you want to compromise and share custody? I have been following your story for a long time and the one thing I cannot understand is why you are unwilling to compromise. It really doesn’t sound like Janet is trying to take Isabella away from you completely. She is just trying to have SOME time with her and be involoved in her life. This is understandable considering that Janet has known Isabella since the moment she became real. Doesn’t it make sense that she loves this child deeply and feels connected to her in a deep and profound way, and therefore wants to continue to be a part of her upbringing? I just don’t understand, and would appreciate very much if you would be kind enough to explain this part of your side. Your blog is a great way to give exposure to an extremely important court case, and it is bound to raise questions from those who follow your story.
Thank you.
Dear Samantha,
Thank you for your comment. I have prayed and thought about your question. Your question was asked by Janet’s attorneys in the April hearing. Therefore, I will not rehash my testimony. Instead, I will let the evidence speak for itself. As a Christian, I speak the truth. The truth is the following:
II Kings 3:16-28
The two women who were harlots came to the king and stood before him. The one woman said, “Oh, my lord, this woman and I live in the same house; and I gave birth to a child while she was in the house. “It happened on the third day after I gave birth, that this woman also gave birth to a child, and we were together, “There was no stranger with us in the house, only the two of us in the house. “This woman’s son died in the night, because she lay on it. “So, she arose in the middle of the night and took my son from beside me while your maidservant slept, and laid him in her bosom, and laid her dead son in my bosom. “When I rose in the morning to nurse my son, behold, he was dead; but when I looked at him carefully in the morning, behold, he was not my son, whom I had borne.” Then the other woman said, “No! For the dead one is your son, and the living one is my son.” But the first woman said, “No! For the dead one is your son, and the living one is my son.” Thus, they spoke before the king. “Then the king said, “The one says, ‘This is my son who is living, and your son is the dead one’; and the other says, ‘No! For your son is the dead one, and my son is the living one.’” The king said, “Get me a sword.” So they brought a sword before the king. The king said, “Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one and half to the other.” Then the woman whose child was the living one spoke to the king, for she was deeply stirred over her son and said , “Oh my lord, give her the living child, and by no means kill him.” But the other said, “He shall be neither mine nor yours; divide him!” Then the king said, “Give the first woman the living child, and by no means kill him. She is his mother.”
I gave visitation on April 14 and am giving it again this month. Janet on the other hand has on May 11, 2007 filed false contempt charges against me (I will be posting later today a brief update on these new charges) and claims the following (as written in her facts and findings)
In a section entitled: “Isabella’s best interests are served with Ms. Jenkins’ as custodial parent”, Janet claims “Isabella would (not) suffer if she were gradually reintroduced to her home” (in Vermont). This “reintroduced” is referring to a complete transfer of custody. Now, go back and read Janet’s proposed final order of custody where the “gradual reintroduction” starts without any gradual introductions at all.
This section also includes information stating that Isabella “is firmly attached and bonded to both parties. Thus, her gradated separation form Ms. Miller, buttressed by liberal visitation and frequent phone, video and written contacts between visits, is not likely to be detrimental to Isabella, particularly given Ms. Jenkins’ willingness to foster and facilitate a strong, positive relationship between her daughter and Ms. Miller” Isabella is not “firmly attached and bonded” as Ms. Jenkins claims. On the ride home from our April 14 visit with Ms.Jenkins’, Isabella asked me who she was. She did not remember her. Does filing false contempt charges against me AFTER I gave a visit support Ms. Jenkins’ claim of “fostering a positive relationship.” Also, does allowing me to only call two days a week and at a specific time (and not affording Isabella any say in calling me) support Ms. Jenkins’ claim of “frequent phone contacts”. In addition, who is to say that Ms. Jenkins’ would allow video and written contacts between the visits because Isabella cannot read nor would she even realize I sent them.
Finally, in the beginning of the case, which began in 2003, Ms. Jenkins’ accused me in numerous letters between my first lawyer and her first lawyer of being an “unfit mother” specifically listing some serious illnesses, all which accused me of not being a fit mother. Furthermore, Ms. Jenkins’ is the one who drove Isabella and I back home to Virginia, willingly and freely. She picked up the moving van for me, she drove the moving van to the N.Y airport to pick up the person who would be helping me unload the boxes in Virginia, and she drove the van from New York to Virginia and not once did Ms. Jenkins’ ask me to stay in Vermont, not once did she express concern over my physical or mental health, and not once did she ask for her to adopt or have any legal status with Isabella. In Ms. Jenkins’ facts and findings today, she “freely acknowledges Ms. Miller as a fit parent, capable of caring for Isabella…”
Just based on the little bit of testimony that I shared above I will let you and the other readers make your own conclusion as King Solomon did.
Joyfully Serving Christ,
Lisa