Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,938
- 265
If every single judge did not invite a counsel to represent a party to a case, it would make that action no less illegal. 1,000 judges could fuck up in this regard and that fuck up would be no less of a fuck up. It's called due process. No judge or vast group of judges in the US can create kangaroo proceedings. Not even by oversight. Not even at the very top of our judicial system. Such mistakes must be overturned and the cases heard properly.If every judge, every lawyer and every ruling doesn't recognize your interpretation, the problem is your interpretation.
Iike, it's wrong.
Obergefell itself declared that children were intrinsic to and derived benefits of the marriage contract (declaring they are implicit partners to it). And, children had NO unique representation briefing the courts on the various hearings that weighed taking away either a father or mother for life via a contractual bind.
Once again, what the Infancy Doctrine has to say about children having counsel in weighty civil cases in which they have a stake. Obergefell quotes clearly tie children fast and hard to both the entire concept of marriage and the benefits of the contract which they share and derive:
Here's the quote about what the Infancy Doctrine requires (note both the direct quote and the link provided, and specific time-saving directions to exact quote location within the lengthy document, to double-check veracity):
Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf
(Page 8 of PDF Page 53 of actual document; at the bottom paragraph)
..Food, clothing, shelter, and medical expenses are in the traditional category of necessities. Education also generally falls in this list. Interestingly enough, "retaining counsel in criminal proceedings" has also been upheld as a necessity and "under extraordinary circumstances," counsel in a civil suit can be as well.
There is nothing more extraordinary to a child or children collectively than a court ratifying a brand new contract they are a part of, that seeks to bind them away for life from either a mother or father (necessities). If that isn't compelling enough, then there is no civil case in which the above quote would apply. (Note the quote says this requirement in civil trials of separate counsel briefing on behalf of children is backed by case law; re: "upheld"...the footnotes in the document linked cite various locations of this case law.)
Your side might have argued properly, if children had counsel briefing, that "mothers or fathers aren't necessities to daughters or sons". And the court may have defied reams of peer-reviewed studies to the contrary in its decision ultimately. But that debate never happened because children had no required counsel at the hearings. Ergo, by the most forgiving definition of a mistrial, those hearings were mistrials.
Last edited: