Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

,

Experts testify to trauma experienced by Isabella Miller in sworn testimony now published online

Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

June 28, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) - LifeSiteNews.com is publishing sworn affidavits by two experts and another eyewitness who testify to evidence of trauma suffered by ex-lesbian Lisa Miller’s daughter, Isabella Miller, following court-ordered visits to Miller’s former lesbian partner, Janet Jenkins.

The documents, available for the first time on the internet, also include court testimony by Isabella Miller’s court-appointed advocate, who expressed concern that transferring custody from Miller to Jenkins would “turn her world upside down.”

Links to all four documents can be found at the conclusion of this article. Three of the four were originally quoted by LifeSiteNews in March of 2010, but were not published in their entirety until now.

The documents illustrate the concerns that presumably led Miller, who had repudiated the lesbian lifestyle and converted to Evangelical Christianity, to flee the United States to avoid further contact between her daughter and Jenkins, with whom she had shared a civil union in the state of Vermont.

Disturbing testimony

Among them is testimony by clinical therapist Sylvia Haydash, who had two clinical sessions with Isabella and observed her for an hour on another occasion. She concluded that the visits were doing serious harm to the child, causing anxiety, renewed bed-wetting, and general psychological regression.

“Isabella appears to have been traumatized by the limited visitation thus far, 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,” wrote Haydash in 2007.

“At this point, after only two supervised two-hour visits, and the resulting regressive behaviors, it is my clinical opinion that leaving Isabella unsupervised with Janet for visitations would needlessly exacerbate Isabella’s trauma,” Haydash also stated. She added, “I further believe that unsupervised visits would be detrimental to Isabella at this time and could cause permanent damage to normal development.”

Gwen Corley, a social worker who also observed Isabella, noted the traumatic effects of Isabella’s relationship with Jenkins

“Isabella suffers from sleep disturbance and nightmares, having difficulty sleeping through the night,” she told the court in 2007, 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.”

Corley added that “the distance from Virginia to Vermont, and the time it takes to travel back in forth, coupled with these emotional concerns, are simply too great to require a five year old to make the trip during the school year ... in my professional opinion it would be detrimental to Isabella’s emotional well-being for her to travel back and forth to Vermont during the school year.”

A final witness, a friend who sometimes cared for Isabella, also expressed her “great concern” at the child’s reactions to her visits with Jenkins in her November 2007 testimony.

Tammara Canfield told the court that Isabella had become “withdrawn” and “unhappy,” despite her normally cheerful demeanor. She also said that she didn’t want to talk about her visits with Janet because “it makes her cry.” She testified that pictures drawn by Isabella also “cause me concern.”

Similar concerns expressed by Miller

The concerns expressed in the affidavits reflect Lisa Miller’s own testimony. Miller told the court that 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. She elaborated on the troubling situation in an extensive interview with LifeSiteNews (LSN) in 2008.

“Last year, Isabella put a comb up to her neck and said she wanted to kill herself after one of the visits,” Miller told LSN.  “She took a comb and pressed it into her neck and said, “I want to kill myself.”  I don’t know where she got that.  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.”

“She is 6 now but this started when she was 5 – after visits.  The very first time that Janet ever saw Isabella after the two and a half years, her very first over-night 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 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 2 ½ years and she takes a bath with her.”

Court appointed legal advocate warns against ‘turning her world upside down’

Michelle Kenny, Isabella’s personal legal advocate appointed by the Vermont court, agreed in 2009 that transferring custody might be harmful to Isabella, and acknowledged that “the position of my client [Isabella] is that Virginia is her home and she wants to stay there” and that she is a “thriving and happy go lucky kid.”

Although Kenny claimed that Jenkins had “a right to a relationship” with Isabella, she told the court that “I certainly can extend to the Court that Isabella’s doing well, that she does want to stay where she’s at” and expressed concern that moving Isabella to Jenkins’ custody could cause an “adverse reaction” in the child.

“And I think that’s probably a concern of the Court, and I would certainly hope it’s a concern of all parties that this doesn’t go as well as the parties may otherwise be suggesting. I mean, we are talking about a complete change in Isabella’s life, and she’s seven years old,” Kenny stated.

She added that there was “a real risk that we have, turning her world upside down and changing, you know Virginia to Vermont.”

However, the Vermont court under judge Richard Cohen was not persuaded by Miller’s expert witnesses, nor Miller herself, and ruled that the visits were to continue.  When Miller refused, he attempted to remove her daughter from her custody and transfer it to Jenkins, discarding the concerns expressed by Isabella’s own attorney.

By the time Cohen issued his ruling transferring custody in January 2010, Miller had already fled the United States with her daughter.  As LifeSiteNews reported earlier this week, domestic and foreign police services are now hunting for the two in Nicaragua, where Miller reportedly took refuge from a government that is now determined to take her child from her.

The four documents appear below:

Testimony by clinical therapist Sylvia Haydash

Testimony by social worker Gwen Corley

Testimony by day care worker Tammara Canfield

Testimony by attorney Michelle Kenny, court-appointed advocate for Isabella Miller


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook