Comments on: Virginia Supreme Court affirms ruling in lesbian-custody case

By: Hublot and Chef Philippe Rochat, ambassadors of the Swiss culture in Singapore! – (1 Reply) | I love Watches!

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:26:50 +0000

[...] cartier ring price cartier roadster cartier santos cartier santos 100 cartier sunglasses cartier tank cartier tank watch cartier trinity b4052700 uk cartier trinity ring cartier uhr [...]

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:12:28 +0000

This is not a news story, but an opinion piece. The Supreme Court’s ruling was not based on the merits of the case. Miller was denied based on a procedural defeat. I urge people to read the actual decision on the Court’s website, instead of basing opinions on the quotes of Jenkins’ attorney and three activists. In fact, had the Marriage Affirmation Act been argued on Miller’s behalf in her first appeal, then this appeal would have gone her way as well.

By: Bill Dolack

Bill Dolack — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 18:58:44 +0000

I read the decision in this case and, contrary to Dyana Mason’s statement, the decision is not a “common-sense decision [that] means that the child involved in the dispute will have the love and support of both her parents as she grows up.”

In fact, the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling in Miller-Jenkins vs. Miller-Jenkins simply says Lisa Miller failed to file a timely appeal and that the case then fell under the “law of the case” doctrine (basically, that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case). Since she did not file her appeal on time, in the law’s eyes, Lisa was then bound by the previous decision.

As to the merits of the original case in the Court of Appeals, VA Supreme Court Justice Hassell had serious reservations, even though there was nothing the Court could do about it:

“I join the opinion of the Court. However, I write separately to state that I have serious concerns about the Court of Appeals’ opinion in the former appeal, Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 49 Va. App. 88, 637 S.E.2d 330 (2006). I do not believe that this decision was correctly decided. Lisa Miller-Jenkins failed to perfect an appeal from that decision in the manner required by law, see Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, Record No. 070355 (May 7, 2007), and, therefore, this Court could not review that decision. As the majority correctly holds, the law of the case doctrine prohibits this Court from considering the merits of the former appeal in this proceeding.”