Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins

Supreme Court of Vermont
912 A.2d 951, 180 Vt. 441, 2006 VT 78 (2006)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A non-biological partner in a valid civil union is a legal parent of a child conceived through artificial insemination and born during the union, particularly when both partners consented to the conception with the intent to jointly raise the child.

Facts:

Lisa Miller-Jenkins and Janet Miller-Jenkins resided together in Virginia.
In December 2000, while residents of Virginia, the couple traveled to Vermont and entered into a civil union.
In 2001, the couple jointly decided that Lisa would become pregnant through artificial insemination using an anonymous sperm donor; Janet participated in the decision and donor selection.
In April 2002, Lisa gave birth to a child, IMJ, with Janet present at the delivery.
The couple raised IMJ together, first in Virginia and then moving to Vermont in August 2002.
The couple lived together with IMJ in Vermont until they separated in the fall of 2003.
Following the separation in September 2003, Lisa moved back to Virginia with IMJ.

Procedural Posture:

On November 24, 2003, Lisa Miller-Jenkins filed a petition to dissolve her civil union in Vermont family court, identifying IMJ as a child of the union and requesting that Janet Miller-Jenkins be granted parent-child contact.
On June 17, 2004, the Vermont family court issued a temporary order granting Lisa temporary custody and Janet specific periods of parent-child contact (visitation).
On July 1, 2004, Lisa filed a petition in the Frederick County Virginia Circuit Court seeking a declaration that she was IMJ's sole parent.
On September 2, 2004, the Vermont court found Lisa in contempt for willfully refusing to comply with its visitation order.
On October 15, 2004, the Virginia court issued an order declaring Lisa the sole parent of IMJ and stating Janet had no parentage or visitation rights.
On December 21, 2004, the Vermont family court issued a ruling explicitly refusing to give full faith and credit to the Virginia court's order.
Lisa Miller-Jenkins (appellant) filed an interlocutory appeal to the Vermont Supreme Court, challenging the Vermont family court's parentage determination, visitation order, contempt finding, and refusal to honor the Virginia court's order.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a non-biological partner in a civil union a legal parent to a child conceived by her partner through artificial insemination during the union, thereby granting her standing to seek visitation rights upon the dissolution of the union?

Opinions:

Majority - Dooley, J.

Yes. A non-biological partner in a civil union is a legal parent of a child conceived by her partner via artificial insemination during the union, where there was a mutual intent to conceive and raise the child together. The court reasoned that under Vermont's civil union statutes, parties to a civil union have the same rights and responsibilities as married spouses with respect to a child born during the union. The court rejected the argument that parentage requires a biological connection, finding that such a narrow view would disrupt families created through assisted reproductive technology and contravene the legislative intent to provide legal equality to civil unions. The court's parentage determination was based on a combination of factors, including the couple's valid legal union, their joint intent and actions to create a family, and public policy favoring the protection and well-being of the child by recognizing two parents. Furthermore, the court held that Vermont had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the custody and visitation dispute under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), and was therefore not required to give full faith and credit to a subsequent, conflicting Virginia court order that was issued in violation of the PKPA.

Analysis:

This case is a landmark decision in family law, extending parental rights to non-biological parents in same-sex relationships based on intent and legal status rather than solely on genetics. It solidifies the principle that children born into a civil union through assisted reproduction are the children of both partners, providing legal security and stability for these families. The ruling also strongly affirms the power of the PKPA to resolve interstate custody disputes, preventing a parent from forum-shopping in a state with laws hostile to same-sex relationships to strip a co-parent of their rights. The decision significantly influenced the legal understanding of parentage in the context of evolving family structures and reproductive technologies.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins (2006)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"