The case involed two ex lovers (one supposedly ex-lesbin) arguing about who gets custody of their adopted daughter. The ex-lesbian had several affidavits written up from suppoters saying her ex abused their daughter, seen here: https://donotlink.it/rJQa

However according to the case files only one (Tammara Canfield) was seen in the hearings. (see here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.glad.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/03-26-10-mj-glad-response-brief.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwik6OjhtfXgAhXhYt8KHXvbACoQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw3w8Od3hJhYHvIKuL39rbqz&cshid=1552146905450)

Why were the other affidavits not used?


On page 18 of the appellate decision linked above, it says:

Finding of Fact No. 60: “Ms. Miller has no justification for denying parent-child contact between Ms. Jenkins and IMJ.” .

Lisa’s lawyers assert that this finding is erroneous because: (1) the court disregarded testimony that IMJ engaged in “frightening behavior” after her visits with Janet; (2) Janet disagrees with Lisa’s and IMJ’s religious beliefs; and (3) the court failed to receive evidence that Janet exposed IMJ to “the homosexual lifestyle, which is documented to be emotionally, psychologically, and physically unhealthy.” (Plaintiff- Appellant’s Brief, pp. 21-22). The simple fact is that Lisa’s extra-legal justifications for her contemptuous conduct do not change the fact that Lisa has no legal justification for non-compliance.

This indicates that Lisa's law errs allege, after the fact, that certain evidence was not received by the family court, but the appellate court simply holds that such evidence was not relevant to the issue of finding of fact #60

On page 21 of the appellate decision it says:

Finding of Fact No. 79: “There is no evidence of abuse of IMJ by either Ms. Miller or Ms. Jenkins.” .

This statement is a truism. There was absolutely no evidence introduced at the August 21, 2009 hearing as to any abuse or allegations of abuse by either of the parties; and Lisa’s lawyers do not suggest otherwise. (Plaintiff-Appellant’s Brief, pp. 20-21). Rather, they point to a 2007 affidavit of Tammara Canfield that they have placed in the Printed Case but which was not before the court at the 2009 hearing. (Id., p. 21; PC 136- 137).

Furthermore, this Court would have to look further back into the history of this case well before the August, 2009 hearing to even find allegations of abuse much less evidence of it. The only live testimony presented at the August, 2009 hearing was by Janet, Janet’s mother Ruth Jenkins, expert witness Jan Tyler, and Kimberly Izzo, a client of Janet’s. None of the witnesses testified that any family members had abused IMJ and Lisa points to no record evidence from the hearing in support of her argument. To the extent Lisa’s affidavit contained any allegations of “abuse,” the judge acted well within his discretion to assess the validity of the allegations and reject them as unsupported

It would seem that the Canfield affidavit was not introduced at the Family Court hering but only afterwards, and that other statements did not contain anything that the Family Court or the appellate court considered to be evidence of abuse.

There is no way on the information in the question to know why this affidavit (and possibly others) was not submitted at the time of the relevant hearing.

  • So it seems Lisa only had her friends tesitfy after the decision? That makes it after the fact then? – Jacob Blaustein Apr 22 at 18:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.