Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Matt Staver, locked in a battle with David Gibbs for the title of the nation's most ridiculously incompetent religious right attorney, says he's going to keep fighting the Miller-Jenkins visitation case:
Matt Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, represented Lisa Miller and her daughter. "I'm disappointed that the Virginia Supreme Court side-stepped the legal conflict between the Vermont civil union law and Virginia's marriage laws," the attorney shares. [But] we're certainly not deterred. This case will still go forward and, in fact, Liberty Counsel will be moving forward with a separate challenge under the state's constitutional amendment in Virginia."
Matt, you stupid git, the Virginia Supreme Court just told you - unanimously - that the Virginia courts are forbidden by federal law from exercising any jurisdiction in the case. The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act is crystal clear on this. When there is a court ruling in one state in a custody or visitation dispute, the courts of any other state are forbidden from altering that ruling and every other state must honor it and enforce it. Period. This is not even remotely controversial, you've had the appeals court and the supreme court of one of the most conservative states in the nation tell you this. Give up, for crying out loud.
"We are going to begin this case again from the very beginning," Staver explains, "arguing the effect of this amendment is to bar recognition of any out-of-state, Vermont same-sex civil union. So even though the case has not been fully addressed yet by the Virginia Supreme Court, we believe that, at some point in the future, it will be addressed. We're just going to begin again and go back through the appellate process."
And if this case had anything even remotely to do with Virginia having to recognize a civil union, you might have a case. But it doesn't have anything to do with it, it never has, and you're lying to your ignorant followers when you claim it does. Your client is the one who filed the case in Vermont court and your client is the one who filed papers in that court calling Janet the "adoptive or biological parent" of the child in this case. She even asked for child support. And that court granted her request. Under federal law, that was the end of the case. She doesn't get to move to another state and demand a do-over. Again, this isn't even remotely controversial as a legal matter. Everyone on the planet seems to understand this but you.
Politics
Comments
In the interest of correctness, this is not what happened. Rather, Matt and his merry band neglected to file the appeal to the VA Supreme Court on time and that case was dismissed. This case was Matt's attempt to re-raise the issue, and the Court ruled he blew it the first time.
So he is an incompetent stupid git. There, that's better.
Why he imagines he gets to try to reopen it yet again I can't imagine. Even if the VA Supremes might be open to a challenge to PKPA (and the Chief Justice indicated they might) they have certainly ruled out doing so in this case. The only action allowed in the VA Courts at this time is the Motion to recognize the Vermont Order.
Ed is correct that this case never had anything to do with SSM. Courts deal with Custody and Support cases every day in which non-biological parents are either granted rights or assessed payments. That's the world we live in. Someone ought to clue Matt in.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 10, 2008 9:43 AM
"...case will still go forward and, in fact, Liberty Counsel will be moving forward with a separate challenge under the state's constitutional amendment in Virginia."
Who is paying this clown's legal fees to keep this case going-his client? If she is still paying for his legal services (which I'm sure are not cheap), then she is dumber than a rock.
Posted by: Engr Tony | June 10, 2008 9:57 AM
"Someone ought to clue Matt in."
Why? The longer he and his supporters waste their time and money on this case that they clearly cannot win, the less time and money they have to spend on cases where they might actually have a shot. Though I suppose it really isn't fair to Ms. Jenkins to have to keep them uselessly busy.
Posted by: BobApril | June 10, 2008 9:59 AM
Ed,
This has NOTHING to do with the law, but what I would call Judicial Harassment. The aim is not to be right, the aim is to sue the other party so often that the other party has to give up because they run out of money, energy or just cannot handle it any more. This happened to my partner, and after $200,000 in legal fees, she was broke, emotional exhausted, character assassinated, and out of means to keep fighting for her daughter. So, she lost and left the state to avoid further deliberate suing. Currently, she cannot do anything to even see her daughter, because as soon as she enters the area where he lives, or even when he finds out where she lives, she will be sued again, probably for abandonment charges. The case would fail, just as previous cases, but the point is that he keeps her busy, poor and exhausted, so that she cannot recover. This is why many men and women give up on their rights to their children, and their children's childhood. Justice in this kind of cases is not about who is right, but plain about who has the most money and can keep it up the longest.
Normally, I post under my name, but if this is linked to my name, I am sure this will find its way to the next court case he is plotting. If you like to contact me, let me know and I contact you.
Posted by: Anonymous with reason | June 10, 2008 10:09 AM
Engr Tony said:
I could be wrong here but I think Liberty Counsel* works pro bono. At any rate, you are right that his client is either dumber than a rock or is just as much a fundamentalist bully as Staver seems to be. She could easily drop the whole issue and admit that she is wrong in this matter. Staver could do nothing further then except bitch about it to anyone that'd listen.
*Why do these type of groups always have the word liberty, freedom or eagle in their names?
Posted by: Jeremy | June 10, 2008 11:17 AM
Liberty Council is named as such, it seems, due to it's close relationship with Liberty University's law school (whose purpose for existence is to pump out lawyers who want to tear down the separation of church and state).
On the topic of naming, they also seem to always have names like "Values" and "Family", but then do everything they can to break up families, deny children from being placed with families, or in this case, keep a child from their parent. Generally, when the word "family" is in the title, I get suspicious, because unlike the people involved in, for example, Focus on the Family, I am pro-family.
Posted by: Dennis N | June 10, 2008 1:38 PM
Anon w/ Reason:
I feel for you. I was in a case in MO back in 1995. I won the right to have visitation with my two kids; the ADF funded the appeal, and the Appellate Court remanded. The Religious Right and the custodial parent kept on defying / intimidating the elected MO judiciary at the trial court level so that they wouldn't re-hear the case until ten years after the first judgment. In the end, I won again, but by that time the children were hopelessly alienated. Of course I get blamed for being such a horrible person, just wanting the right to send letters and have phone calls. What a monster.
That is their strategy. Delay contact; deny your rights. When you contest your rights being taken away, you are painted as the one "putting them through so much suffering," ironically. Meanwhile, they tell this to the kids - "your [other] parent is so horrible, putting us through all this, keeping us poor, & etc." After the inevitable alienation, even if you finally get your rights back, you lose. If you contest you are a selfish monster; if you walk away, you are a selfish monster.
Oh and you get to pay child support the entire time, or the sword of the state will chase you down if you miss a single month.
I guess I got off easy. (not counting child support) I was only out about $45K.
However, the kids lose, too. My eldest is on SSI, unable / unwilling to get a job or learn to drive. The youngest failed out of school, has been charged with stealing at least four times, and is staring at prison time (at age 18) for a felony. The custodial parent - diagnosed with a mental illness the entire time, probably on SSI, only able to work part time. Eminently co-dependent in her parenting style.
It could have turned out so differently.
James Dobson and the ADF should be sooooo proud of their work.
Posted by: SharonB | June 10, 2008 1:56 PM
SharonB. Thank you for your story. It is in many ways similar. I am not necessarily blaming the right wing nuts for all these cases, because this happens in all layers of society, and has more to do with screwed emotional and mental processes, the inability to deal with reality etc, and in those cases, money rules and determines the outcome, not reason and what is best for the child(eren)
Posted by: Anonymous with reason | June 10, 2008 2:40 PM
SharonB and Annonymous: The legal system has never been a good way to solve family disputes. Sorry about that. I facilitate a recovery group for divorced or separated people, and at the first meeting I always tell them: "If you go to Court, you will lose, even if you get what you are after. You will spend a lot of money, destroy whatever relationship with your ex as might have survived, and worst of all, ruin the lives of your children. If that's what you're after, I advise you to go to Court."
In another life, I was a divorce lawyer. Guess what? It sucks for them, too, and for the Judges and the Guardian ad litem and everyone else who has to be involved. But mostly it sucks for the kids who just love their parents and don't want to be involved in a fight between them.
Again, I'm sorry. As long as we insist on doing things this way, though, we'll have stories like yours and lawsuits like the above. Best wishes to all.
Kurt
Posted by: kehrsam | June 10, 2008 4:00 PM
Kurt, "If you go to Court, you will lose" might be true at times, but if it would be true, why did the ex-husband of my partner win by going to court?
Posted by: Anonymous with reason | June 10, 2008 4:51 PM
He won the case, yes. In order to do so he spent untold thousands of dollars and traumatized his kids. The fact that the situation is worse for his ex really doesn't make up for that unless he was already a psychopath before the battle started.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 10, 2008 5:14 PM
Kurt:
I agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately it only takes one unreasonable person, who views the divorce as a zero-sum game, and the kids as the prize, to screw it up for everyone.
Yes, I would agree it is sociopathic / psychopathic, but them's out there in abundance. And the ADF and other right wing groups, with their culture-war mentality, enable the madness (I do blame them).
Thanks for your kind words.
Posted by: SharonB | June 10, 2008 7:39 PM