Pastor Convicted of Helping Ex-Lesbian Flee Country With Daughter Ordered to Report to Prison

MillerBURLINGTON, Vt. — A Mennonite pastor who was convicted of providing assistance to an ex-lesbian who fled the country with her daughter has been ordered to report to prison next month after losing his appeal.

As previously reported, Kenneth Miller of Stuarts Draft, Virginia was convicted in August 2012 for helping Lisa Miller (no relation) and her young daughter Isabella travel to Buffalo, New York, where they crossed the border into Canada and then escaped to Nicaragua.

The situation began in 2000, when Lisa Miller, then a homosexual, joined in a civil union with lesbian Janet Jenkins in the state of Vermont. Following an artificial insemination procedure, Miller gave birth to baby Isabella in 2002.

In 2003, Miller and Jenkins split, and Miller moved to Virginia. She renounced homosexuality and reportedly turned to Jesus Christ for salvation. When the civil union was officially dissolved, the court gave custody to Miller, while also granting visitation rights to Jenkins.

While Miller did allow Isabella to spend time with Jenkins for awhile, she reportedly became very concerned at the information that her daughter was providing to her following the visitations.

Miller and Isabella
Miller and Isabella

Later, Miller testified to the court that the visits were causing great trauma to Isabella. She claimed that at six years old, the girl was forced to take baths together with Jenkins, and that the girl was openly touching herself inappropriately. She also stated that Isabella was withdrawn and talked about suicide at times.

“Isabella came home and said, ‘Mommy, will you please tell Janet that I don’t have to take a bath anymore at her house,’” Miller told reporters in 2008. “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.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“Last year, Isabella put a comb up to her neck and said she wanted to kill herself after one of the visits,” she outlined. “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.”

Miller then filed for exclusive custody of Isabella, and the court agreed. However, Jenkins fought the ruling all the way up to the Virginia Supreme Court, which in 2008, ruled in favor of granting Miller’s former lesbian partner visitation rights. Miller refused.

The following year, family court judge Richard Cohen warned Miller that she must allow Isabella to visit Jenkins and threatened that if she did not do so, he would transfer full custody to Jenkins. In November 2009, Cohen followed through with his threats.

However, Miller had fled the country with Isabella before he issued the transfer order, and for some time, none knew the whereabouts of the two. Information later turned up that Miller and Isabella had taken refuge in Nicaragua. It was also alleged that Pastor Kenneth Miller had a part helping Miller flee the country.

“It was in very painful circumstances that Lisa came to the Anabaptists in Virginia for help, which as a follower of Jesus, Ken could not ignore,” Miller’s website, explains. “Ken supported Lisa’s desire to remove herself and Isabella from former relationships which were not in accord with Jesus’ standard. However, he felt only love and compassion for Lisa’s former partner and others involved.”

In 2013, months after Miller had been convicted of aiding in international kidnapping in federal court, Judge William Sessions gave Miller the maximum sentence of 27 months behind bars as requested by prosecutor Christina Nolan, plus one year of supervised federal probation.

Miller had already been incarcerated for a month for refusing to testify in the case of another man who is also facing charges for his participation in the matter.

However, because a “substantial question” existed over whether the case should have been heard in Miller’s home state of Virginia rather than in Vermont, Sessions stayed the sentence until an appeal is heard over the issue. He then set Miller free.

Last month, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Sessions’ ruling, and on Tuesday, Sessions ordered Miller to report to prison on March 22nd to begin serving his sentence. The date had initially been set for March 1, but was moved at Miller’s request.

“Ken and the government have come to the agreement that Ken will not pursue further appeals, and the government will not pursue additional charges,” Miller’s website outlines. “Pray for us as family and church work to send him off well and prepare for his absence.”

Philip Zodhiates, the second man facing charges in the matter, is expected to go on trial in September in Buffalo, New York.

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Peter Leh

    You mean he helped take away another person’s legal child?

    That is a good thing? Think about it.

    • Amos Moses

      A child of a faux marriage was being abused. He helped a child escape trauma and if you really think what he did was wrong then you need to change that avatar.

      Think about it…………….

      • Peter Leh

        Indeed. I have to backpedal just a bit.

        Divorce is indeed messy. However
        Jenkins is STILL the legal mother of this child as is Miller. BOTH
        have rights until one can establish the other is not suitable to be
        alone with the child. Miller failed to do that. Then fled the country
        with the help of Pastor Miller.

        • Amos Moses

          “Jenkins is STILL the legal mother of this child as is Miller.”

          No, they are not, the only parent is the one who gave birth. The other, “married” or not, is not a parent, despite what mans law may say about it. “Miller gave birth to baby Isabella in 2002.”

          “Then fled the country with the help of Pastor Miller.”

          And should he go to jail for that act of civil disobedience? Probably, but he is not wrong for what he did. We should obey God rather than men.

          • Peter Leh

            “No, they are not, the only parent is the one who gave birth”

            you have one parent? 😉

          • Amos Moses

            This child has two parents, one was a sperm donor to the mother, the “civil-union partner”, in Gods eyes, is nothing. Despite mans depraved “rulings”..

          • Peter Leh

            God’s eyes? Go for it. But that is changing the subject, is it not? I have not mentioned what is in “god’s eye”. Legally this child has two parents that happen to be women.

          • Amos Moses

            You are the one on a christian site with a “Nazerine” symbol as an avatar, a symbol used by Muslims to persecute christians, and i am changing the subject.

            i think not………………..

          • Peter Leh

            Is this about me or staying ON subject? You can go there… i am just informing you i am am not. 🙂

          • Amos Moses

            The subject on a christian site is Christ…………. it all comes back to Christ.

            Stay or go…. i care not.

          • Peter Leh

            conversion is based on staying on point. chasing rabbits only muddy the water. Converse or not… the courtesy of conversation will be called out. 🙂

            Manners matter. Even in christianity. 🙂

          • Amos Moses

            Conversion to what? No, you are on a christian site and it is about Christ.

            Are you?

          • Peter Leh

            conversation to what is printed. changing the subject is rude.

          • Amos Moses

            Disrespecting a christian site with heresy is rude.

          • Peter Leh

            on man’s heresy is another’s disagreement in opinion.. ask any two christian denominations

            Having not brought up anything spiritual on my part hardly warrants any heretical accusations. It makes sense when one stays on subject. 🙂

          • Amos Moses

            “on man’s heresy is another’s disagreement in opinion”

            Postmodern claptrap…………. homosexuality violates Gods law and it has not changed.

            “Having not brought up anything spiritual on my part hardly warrants any heretical accusations.”

            You are defending a lesbian for being a lesbian in front of a child. And again, you are on a christian site and you expect God/Christ not to be brought up,,,,, when just by being here you are consenting to that conversation and then you tell others to basically shut up about it because it is rude.

            No, you are rude, your avatar betrays your intent, and if the conversation is not to your liking, to bad.

          • Peter Leh

            “Postmodern claptrap…………. homosexuality violates Gods law and it has not changed.”

            where have i stated differently? stay on subject

            “You are defending a lesbian for being a lesbian in front of a child”

            I am defending parental rights under state law until abuse can be proven.

            “And again, you are on a christian site and you expect God/Christ not to be brought up,,,,,”

            It can be brought up… but is not my focus and a change of subject

            “when just by being here you are consenting to that conversation and then
            you tell others to basically shut up about it because it is rude”

            If one is talking about “a”. but someone talks about “b”. Be my guest. I am talking about “a”

            “No, you are rude, your avatar betrays your intent, and if the conversation is not to your liking, to bad”

            No Prob. It is not about me anyway. Good luck to you. 🙂

          • Amos Moses

            “I am defending parental rights under state law until abuse can be proven.”

            And there is the problem……….

          • Peter Leh

            The Problem or The Starting Point?

            BTW Miller delivered the baby, do we know if Jenkins donated the egg?

          • Amos Moses

            The birth mother is the mother. But you do bring up an interesting point.

            See what happens when man decides he is god and says to God “You do not matter, what I want is more important than what you want”. What man, or in this case two women, decided that they not only wanted to mess up their lives, they would do it to a child as well.

          • Peter Leh

            yep. divorce is always messy. i agree.

          • Amos Moses

            Yes it is and these two compounded the problems with their willful disregard of Gods plan for men and women, not men and men or women and women. The child is the one really suffering here, far more than any male/female relationship.

            And to make things even worse as man has “progressed” and become more “tolerant” we have this: Babies With Genes From 3 People Could Be Ethical, Panel Says. So, as if we are not abusing children enough, it has been decided that it is “ethical” to do this to them. “Tolerance” only really means “You have to be accepting of my sins, no matter what they are”.

            But that is “tolerance” and “evolution” and again, we are saying to God “You do not matter, what I want is more important than what you want”.

          • Peter Leh

            “”on man’s heresy is another’s disagreement in opinion”Postmodern claptrap………….”
            as i stated… ask any two christian denominations

          • Amos Moses

            Ask Christ………….. Christ determines who He is and what He taught.

          • Peter Leh

            I agree. Neither you or myself are… HIM. 🙂

          • SeanRobinson

            Cowardly mewling like yours is considerably ruder though.

          • Amos Moses

            So you have nothing to contribute but ad hominem……………..

            And you are not rude………?

            Thank you from the peanut gallery.

          • SeanRobinson

            You have decided to turn your entire spiritual life into ad hominem attacks on everyone who believes differently than you and support others to do the same. God thinks you are scum and longs for your death so that he can joyfully toss you into the pits of hell for your cruelty and hipocrisy. Enjoy your pathetic time on earth, making life worse for those around you, because you’ll spend an eternity hating yourself.

          • Amos Moses

            i am not crazy, my mother had me tested.

            “You have decided to turn your entire spiritual life into ad hominem attacks”

            So if you understood what ad hominem attacks are then you would not say that. It is a personal attack, directly to that person. i have not directly attacked anyone. Now you may not like what i say, and while i am very careful not to use personal pronouns, which are characteristic of a personal attack, some may feel that the content of what i have to say seems directed at them.

            That is being convicted of what they are doing because they know they are guilty. That is not a personal attack.

          • SeanRobinson

            Actually, no, ad hominem attacks are efforts to avoid the merits of an argument in order to make claims about the person (or people) making the argument. You should learn more about the phrases you use and therefore not make an idiot of yourself!

            Seriously though, your morality is tuned wrong and you are, fundamentally, a bad human being who brings pain and misery to the world.

          • Amos Moses

            ‘not make an idiot of yourself!”” your morality is tuned wrong and you are, fundamentally, a bad human being ”

            Ad hominem…….. and very poor debate technique.

          • SeanRobinson

            Again, you’ve neglected to learn what ad hominems are. I’ve stated aspects of your argument that I find incorrect that are tied to your moral structure. This is not a diversion or logical fallacy. Just because you’ve read a phrase on the internet does not mean you understand it and your seemingly willful ignorance in this regard is pathetic.

            Additionally, a debate is either a contest or an effort to present two sides of an argument. That is not what is occurring here. I am condemning you and your hollow morality and you are poorly defending it. I am not seeking to convince you, I am proclaiming you and your ilk as fundamentally evil. My righteousness on this point is not required to be contained within the prison of civility. Your inability to recognise your own disgusting and immoral nature is a product of the very failings I have described. You will get no reward upon your passing, even if heaven existed, because of your small minded bigotry, your copious deficits of character, and the cruelty that results from your hipocrisy.

          • Amos Moses

            “Again, you’ve neglected to learn what ad hominems are”

            “An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”, short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attack on an argument made by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly. When used inappropriately, it is a logical fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized.”

            All you are trying to to is attack me personally as if my “character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, rather than attacking the argument directly”
            has anything to do with the topic.

            But rant on………………………

          • SeanRobinson

            No, I’m suggesting your terrible character lies at the fount of your terrible argument and they is intrinsic to the dumb things you say. Calling someone who has stolen a bunch of things in the past a thief when you are arguing with them about something they just took isn’t an ad hominem either.

            You really are TERRIBLE at this. If ever you think a dictionary definition will win an argument, you’ve already lost, dolt. Have fun burning in hell or, in your best case scenario, dying and simply ceasing to exist.

          • Amos Moses

            … please continue your rant……………..

          • SeanRobinson

            Please don’t continue talking, ever again. You have nothing to offer the world and never will. You’ve wasted your existence.

          • Amos Moses

            Sorry, you do not get to dictate my life, Christ does.

            But again, i do need a little more of a nap, so please bore me some more…………………..

          • Amos Moses

            Boohoo………. Boohoo ……….. ……………. oh, and you lose.

          • SeanRobinson

            Amos, do you think you brought glory to the Lord here? Because I think you disgust Him.

          • Amos Moses

            You call me “Raca” and then you ask that?


          • SeanRobinson

            I call you “raca”? Did you just have a stroke?

          • Amos Moses

            Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

          • SeanRobinson

            See, you’re such a failure at your faith that you are mischaracterising the text of the bible, like Satan would.

          • Amos Moses

            Hehehe…. it is not “mischaracterising” or out of context.

            5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

            5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

            5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

            5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

            5:23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;

            5:24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

          • SeanRobinson

            And yet your incredible hostility to those who believe differently than you is transparent, despite your hypocritical pretense of geniality. Have fun burning for all eternity in hell!

          • Amos Moses

            So more “raca”.

          • SeanRobinson

            You are so pathetically disparate to win here. How does it feel to be so intellectually and morally impotent? Seems like it would be frustrating. Nothing compared to your upcoming eternity of hellfire, but still. Way to waste your life.

          • Amos Moses

            I enjoy long walks, especially when they are taken by people who try to annoy me.

          • Amos Moses

            Sorry, no itching ears are scratched here.

          • Peter Leh

            “Sorry, no itching ears are scratched here.”

            indeed a throw any line by those with no retort. But let get back to the subject shall we?

          • Anne Gull

            No child can have two mommies or two daddies. Every child has a mother and a father. Period.

          • Peter Leh

            Biologically yes…. in reality i know many with one or two parents of the same sex. In some instances more that two. 🙂

          • Ruby Pearl

            It doesn’t take a genius to know the implications of any child not being raised by a father!

            I’ve never understood why, when homosexual men say they don’t like women sexually, one of them always stands in as a representation of a female when they couple up. Same scenario with lesbians. What’s up with that? I thought lesbians don’t like men, and homosexual men don’t like women? So why does one member in every homosexual pairing still represent the gender they don’t like sexually? Convoluted much?

            Btw, I refuse to attribute the word “gay” to homosexuals. It’s a word that means “lively and vivacious,” and some homosexuals may be just that, or they may not be. However, they are definitely homosexual.

          • Peter Leh

            “It doesn’t take a genius to know the implications of any child not being raised by a father!”

            which happens everyday.

            “Convoluted much?”

            seems so.

            “Btw, I refuse to attribute the word “gay” to homosexuals. It’s a word that means “lively and vivacious,””

            I understand. I am sure someone has refused to call a fag a cigarette. 🙂

          • Ruby Pearl

            Yes, it is horribly convoluted for any child to be raised without a father! Sadly, it does happen every day, and the damage done is irreparable!

        • Amos Moses

          “BOTH have rights until one can establish the other is not suitable to be
          alone with the child.”

          No, there is no right to cause harm to a child.

          • Peter Leh

            “No, there is no right to cause harm to a child”

            Agreed. And that was not proven in court , unfortunately.

          • Amos Moses

            And it does not need to be proven in court for Mr. Miller to act.

          • Peter Leh

            “And it does not need to be proven in court for Mr. Miller to act.”

            I would hope it would for him to decide to do time. But Preacher Miller can do what he wishes and face whatever is the consequence based on his understanding. Understanding based on actual abuse or sin of homosexuality? I dont know.

          • Amos Moses

            “actual abuse or sin of homosexuality?”

            A with distinction no real difference.

          • Peter Leh

            in what way? Abuse is against the law. sexual orientation is not.

          • Amos Moses

            Whose law?

          • Peter Leh

            I believe abuse is a violation is all 50 states. 🙂

          • Amos Moses

            Homosexuality violates Gods law. It all comes back to Christ.

          • Peter Leh

            so is lying… .with “no real difference”. What of it? You support a pastor aiding and abetting kidnapping one’s child for lying?

            Stay on subject Amos. We are talking law and parental rights here. Not sin.

          • Amos Moses

            Sin is the violation of Gods law……………… A parent has no right to abuse. The pastor was right to do what he did EVEN IF it violated an earthly court.

            We are to obey God rather than men……………………….

          • Peter Leh

            Gothca… hope your pastor does not catch you in a lie. (all things being equal)

          • Anne Gull

            Just because something is deemed legal doesn’t make it right. Consider abortion. Just because something is deemed illegal doesn’t make it wrong. God’s law is higher!

          • Peter Leh

            The law is what we have…. would you like to live without?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Not in this country it doesn’t.

          • Amos Moses

            In every country………………….

          • Fox71

            This sets a good precedent for liberating children being abused under christian indoctrination.

          • Jeanette Victoria

            That’s because the judge would now allow the evidence. Perverts get special rights these days

          • Peter Leh

            Without knowing the specifics….Evidence has to be entered in a certain way or it get thrown out or not admitted.

            That is not a special right as it applies to everybody.

          • SFBruce

            What evidence wasn’t admitted that would’ve changed the outcome?

          • Coach

            Philippians 3:17 Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern. 18 For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame—who set their mind on earthly things.

            Heed the warning Peter, repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

          • Anne Gull

            Let’s all bow to the almighty court system, which is righteousness and justice on full display! HA, what a joke!

        • Jeanette Victoria

          Jenkins did NOT adopt Isabella she has no right to a unrealted child

          • Peter Leh

            They had a civil union. The courts and the union, apparently recognized in the state of Vermont, indeed say she has a right to her child.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It was a child conceived within a marriage, giving rise to the presumption that the child’s parents were the married couple.

            Although, I strongly doubt that your objection is really based on a legal technicality. Am I right?

          • Anne Gull

            Two people of the same sex cannot be married. Marriage is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman. Period.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The courts are not interested in the religious definition of marriage.

          • Anne Gull

            They’re certainly not interested in what we the people want! It’s called judicial tyranny!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            They don’t have to be. This is a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution overrides the will of the people. Even if 100% of the people voted for something, it would have to be overturned if it were unconstitutional.

          • Amos Moses

            We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

            Abraham Lincoln

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, and who decides who has “perverted the Constitution?” You?

          • Amos Moses

            See, you do not even recognize your error. You said:
            “The Constitution overrides the will of the people. Even if 100% of the people voted for something, it would have to be overturned if it were unconstitutional.”

            No, the people ARE the constitution. We The People………

            Not a SCOTUS or any court if they fail to follow the will of the people. Not any congress of men if they fail to follow the will of the people.

            Sorry, they are not our rulers, they are our SERVANTS.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            The people are not the Constitution. The Constitution is a piece of paper. Do you know anyone who is a piece of paper?

            And no, SCOTUS does not follow the will of the people. It follows the Constitution, whether the people like it or not.

          • Amos Moses

            So when it says We The People…………….. it means nothing?

            of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

            No, SCOTUS is not the ruling unelected class that we are under. WE The People are…..

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, “we the people” established a Constitution. One that has 4,543 words. It has rules, restrictions, procedures, and nomenclature. It’s not just ten pages of “Put it to a vote, put it to a vote, put it to a vote…”

            Nobody said SCOTUS are our rulers. SCOTUS obeys the Constitution, which we can change, if we want. But until we do, we obey SCOTUS.

          • Amos Moses

            “SCOTUS obeys the Constitution,”

            Hint: You really should stop for a moment and smell what you are shoveling.

            Ginsburg Shares Views on Influence of Foreign Law on Her Court …
            Apr 11, 2009

            Where is there any delegated authority for any SCOTUS member to do that?

            “But until we do, we obey SCOTUS”

            No, SCOTUS obeys US.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What does that mean, “SCOTUS obeys us?”

            Did you ever vote for a Supreme Court justice? Did you vote on a case before the Court? File an amicus brief?

          • gizmo23

            If her name is on the birth certificate she is a parent

          • Jeanette Victoria

            Her name is NOT on the birth certificate

          • gizmo23

            Do you that for sure? Did i miss something?

          • Ay_Bee3

            Janet’s name is not on the birth certificate, and neither did she legally adopt Isabella.

      • The Guest

        Which is exactly the reason there is an “underground” for this type of thing, be they same-sex marriages or otherwise. Our courts do not do a very good job of protecting abused children from their so-called parents. They take parental rights over the child’s welfare often. They also have been jaded by those who claim abuse when there was none, and the ones who pay for it are the ones who really are facing abuse, the “boy who cried “Wolf!” syndrome.

    • Michael Link

      Just because a court rules it one way does not mean it is right…

      • Peter Leh

        of course. But without law what have we?

        • karennyman

          The problem arises in these types of “marriages” that children have become commodities. It is a new type of slavery where people think they have a “right ” to a child. I feel this case exemplifies that.

          • Peter Leh


          • Michael C

            The problem arises in these types of “marriages” that children have become commodities.

            What leads you to believe that gay parents view their children any differently than straight parents?

            It is a new type of slavery where people think they have a “right ” to a child.

            What do you mean by this? People don’t have a right to have children? Where do you live that people don’t have the right to have kids?

          • Peter Leh

            i took it that “across the board” parents many time use their kids as pawns during a divorce.

          • Ronald Robey

            I have yet to see a story of a straight parent taking a bath with her six-year-old daughter.

          • Michael C

            I agree that this would be an incredibly strange thing to do. I have my doubts that it ever happened.

            I generally don’t trust the word of kidnappers.

            This woman has proven that she will do anything to keep Jenkins from their child. She kidnapped Isabella and fled to Nicaragua.


            That’s not normal. Normal people don’t do that.

    • It is a good thing that he did something practical to correct a grave injustice. That this injustice was ordered by the court is a great problem. Someone else will have to fix the court in some practical way.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        What injustice was he correcting?

  • FoJC_Forever

    Our justice system isn’t about Truth and Justice, but about morally deprived politics and sinful social movements.

  • SFBruce

    It’s too bad Janet Jenkins’ version of these events aren’t included in this story, but even without that, Lisa Miller’s side of things doesn’t seem that compelling to me. Ken Miller claims to feel “only love and compassion” for Janet Jenkins, but putting himself between her and her child seems a strange way to show that. This is a sad, sad case all around, but Ken Miller has had every opportunity to take a different course of action, and he chose to ignore the law.

    • Coach

      Please inform others of your hatred for God prior to commenting. Man’s law will be useless at the judgement seat of Jesus Christ when all who practice sin and believe the law of Satan will be cast into the lake of fire. If you read the article, you’d understand the child is not Janet’s. The man who sold his seed has more legal right to the child than she does.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Janet was the wife of the biological mother at the time the child was born, and sperm donor agreements usually demand that the donor waive his paternal rights, so it’s highly unlikely that the sperm donor has more rights than Janet. And the court agrees.

        As for the rest of your post, it’s irrelevant to this matter.

  • Michael C

    I went in search of the source of the quotes in this article. They seem to originate from a 2008 interview for LifeSiteNews. For whatever reason, that article has disappeared from the LifeSiteNews website.

  • Nidalap

    One wonders if the result would have been the same had she been fleeing an unwanted relationship with an evil MAN…

  • afchief

    This just shows you how sick and twisted the homosexual lifestyle is. A grown woman taking baths with a 6 year old girl?!?!?!

    No matter what the homosexual community says, we Christians know where this lifestyle comes from. We know who is behind it. And we know how evil it is and what it does to a person’s soul. There is nothing normal, natural or moral about this lifestyle. It is perverted, deviant, and extremely dangerous to one’s physical health.

    There is freedom in Jesus Christ. If people continue in this sin, only more torment and pain awaits.


    • rose white

      homosexuals and lesbians both claim they are nothing to do with pedophilia but this case proves homosexuals/lesbians and pedophiles are all driven by the same perversion – PGSISD

  • afchief

    5 Reasons Why Same-Sex Marriage Will Harm Children

    By Trayce Hansen, Ph.D.

    Proponents of same-sex marriage believe the only thing children really need is love. Based on that supposition, they conclude it’s just as good for children to be raised by loving parents of the same sex, as it is to be raised by loving parents of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, that basic assumption—and all that flows from it—is false. Because love isn’t enough!

    All else being equal, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. It’s within this environment that children are most likely to be exposed to the emotional and psychological experiences they need in order to thrive.

    Men and women bring diversity to parenting; each makes unique contributions to the rearing of children that can’t be replicated by the other. Mothers and fathers simply are not interchangeable. Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father.

    So here are five reasons why it’s in the best interest of children to be raised by both a mother and a father:

    First, mother-love and father-love—though equally important—are qualitatively different and produce distinct parent-child attachments. Specifically, it’s the combination of the unconditional-leaning love of a mother and the conditional-leaning love of a father that’s essential to a child’s development. Either of these forms of love without the other can be problematic. Because what a child needs is the complementary balance the two types of parental love and attachment provide.

    Only heterosexual parents offer children the opportunity to develop relationships with a parent of the same, as well as the opposite sex. Relationships with both sexes early in life make it easier for a child to relate to both sexes later in life. For a girl, that means she’ll better understand and appropriately interact with the world of men and be more comfortable in the world of women. And for a boy, the converse will hold true. Having a relationship with “the other”—an opposite sexed parent—also increases the likelihood that a child will be more empathetic and less narcissistic.

    Secondly, children progress through predictable and necessary developmental stages. Some stages require more from a mother, while others require more from a father. For example, during infancy, babies of both sexes tend to do better in the care of their mother. Mothers are more attuned to the subtle needs of their infants and thus are more appropriately responsive. However, at some point, if a young boy is to become a competent man, he must detach from his mother and instead identify with his father. A fatherless boy doesn’t have a man with whom to identify and is more likely to have trouble forming a healthy masculine identity.

    A father teaches a boy how to properly channel his aggressive and sexual drives. A mother can’t show a son how to control his impulses because she’s not a man and doesn’t have the same urges as one. A father also commands a form of respect from a boy that a mother doesn’t––a respect more likely to keep the boy in line. And those are the two primary reasons why boys without fathers are more likely to become delinquent and end up incarcerated.

    Father-need is also built into the psyche of girls. There are times in a girl’s life when only a father will do. For instance, a father offers a daughter a safe, non-sexual place to experience her first male-female relationship and have her femininity affirmed. When a girl doesn’t have a father to fill that role she’s more likely to become promiscuous in a misguided attempt to satisfy her inborn hunger for male attention and validation.

    Overall, fathers play a restraining role in the lives of their children. They restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually. When there’s no father to perform this function, dire consequences often result both for the fatherless children and for the society in which these children act out their losses.

    Third, boys and girls need an opposite-sexed parent to help them moderate their own gender-linked inclinations. As example, boys generally embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationships, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while girls generally embrace the reverse. An opposite-sexed parent helps a child keep his or her own natural proclivities in check by teaching—verbally and nonverbally—the worth of the opposing tendencies. That teaching not only facilitates moderation, but it also expands the child’s world—helping the child see beyond his or her own limited vantage point.

    Fourth, same-sex marriage will increase sexual confusion and sexual experimentation by young people. The implicit and explicit message of same-sex marriage is that all choices are equally acceptable and desirable. So, even children from traditional homes—influenced by the all-sexual-options-are-equal message—will grow up thinking it doesn’t matter whom one relates to sexually or marries. Holding such a belief will lead some—if not many—impressionable young people to consider sexual and marital arrangements they never would have contemplated previously. And children from homosexual families, who are already more likely to experiment sexually, would do so to an even greater extent, because not only was non-traditional sexuality role-modeled by their parents, it was also approved by their society.

    There is no question that human sexuality is pliant. Think of ancient Greece or Rome—among many other early civilizations—where male homosexuality and bisexuality were nearly ubiquitous. This was not so because most of those men were born with a “gay gene,” rather it was because homosexuality was condoned by those societies. That which a society sanctions, it gets more of.

    And fifth, if society permits same-sex marriage, it also will have to allow other types of marriage. The legal logic is simple: If prohibiting same-sex marriage is discriminatory, then disallowing polygamous marriage, polyamorous marriage, or any other marital grouping will also be deemed discriminatory. The emotional and psychological ramifications of these assorted arrangements on the developing psyches and sexuality of children would be disastrous. And what happens to the children of these alternative marriages if the union dissolves and each parent then “remarries”? Those children could end up with four fathers, or two fathers and four mothers, or, you fill in the blank.

    Certainly homosexual couples can be just as loving as heterosexual couples, but children require more than love. They need the distinctive qualities and the complementary natures of a male and female parent.

    The accumulated wisdom of over 5,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

    Same-sex marriage definitely isn’t in the best interest of children. And although we empathize with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn’t allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can’t allow the children to lose.

    http://www.drtraycehansen. com/Pages/writings_samesex.html

  • acontraryview

    Yeah, when you aid and abet a person in committing a criminal act, prison is often the result.

  • Praise God for these godly men who risked their own reputations and well-being to help this mother and her daughter. May Jesus Christ bless them mightily. Amen!

  • The mother of the abused-by-lesbian daughter has renounced the wickedness and is still being persecuted by the Satanic State.

    May God continue to help and guide them and all who stand in the gap.

  • The government has come to an agreement. Ha. We shall see…