united-states children
Why weren&#39;t these affidavits in Miller-Jenkins v Jenkins accepted?
<p>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: <a href="https://donotlink.it/rJQa" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://donotlink.it/rJQa</a></p>

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

<p>Why were the other affidavits not used? </p>

<p>On page 18 of the appellate decision linked above, it says:</p>

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

<p>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</p>

<p>On page 21 of the appellate decision it says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Finding of Fact No. 79: “There is no evidence of abuse of IMJ by either Ms. Miller
  or Ms. Jenkins.” .</p>
  
  <p>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).</p>
  
  <p>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</p>
</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>
