Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?

[Syriusly]

As I have repeatedly pointed out and you repeatedly ignore- that is another of your bald faced lies.

There is no contract that guarantees the absence of any parent.

Except a marriage contract between lesbians or gays. Their expressed terms manifestly banish either a father or mother from the home for life.

Except of course that is a lie.

As I have pointed out over and over. There is absolutely nothing in a marriage license of gays or straights that specifically bans a biological mother or father from living in the same home.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ So you get automatic alerts on your iphone when I sign in on USMB? Can I get that app too moderators?

I'm glad the judge in this case allowed orphans to join it back in March. Just after he did, those six adopted kids were killed by the lesbians who adopted them. Talk about timing. This is why kids need a voice in court on these cases. That and making fathers legally irrelevant should be something that boys especially need a voice on and counsel briefing the court.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ So you get automatic alerts on your iphone when I sign in on USMB? Can I get that app too moderators?
t.

Forget how to use the post reply button Silly?

You think that if you don't use it- I won't see your silly posts?

 

[Syriusly]

I'm glad the judge in this case allowed orphans to join it back in March. Just after he did, those six adopted kids were killed by the lesbians who adopted them. Talk about timing. This is why kids need a voice in court on these cases. That and making fathers legally irrelevant should be something that boys especially need a voice on and counsel briefing the court.

So you think that all children in all adoption cases- should be paying for separate legal counsel for themselves?

Odd isn't it- that you only think this when gays kill their adopted kids- but not the myriad of tragic cases of straights killing their kids- or even straights abandoning their kids.

 

[Silhouette]

So you think that all children in all adoption cases- should be paying for separate legal counsel for themselves?

Odd isn't it- that you only think this when gays kill their adopted kids- but not the myriad of tragic cases of straights killing their kids- or even straights abandoning their kids.

This case is about gays wanting to adopt kids. So properly when talking about this case, yes, when gays kill their adopted kids, the topic is properly reserved to them. Paying for counsel isn't an issue. That's a strawman. On landmark cases involving family law, all members of the family subject to the terms of the marriage contract must have counsel briefing the courts. Otherwise the case is a mistrial. The judge in Dumont acted properly including the orphans who sought to intervene. Their petition to intervene was redundant in that the courts must automatically ask all parties to join. The judges in all gay marriage cases since day one were mandated to ask counsel to brief on behalf of the missing parties.

The fact that this judge granted the motion of children to intervene is a case law precedent to review the past cases for adhering to due process. Which of course, they all would fail.

 

[Syriusly]

So you think that all children in all adoption cases- should be paying for separate legal counsel for themselves?

Odd isn't it- that you only think this when gays kill their adopted kids- but not the myriad of tragic cases of straights killing their kids- or even straights abandoning their kids.

This case is about gays wanting to adopt kids. So properly when talking about this case, yes, when gays kill their adopted kids,.

So in cases where straights are adopting kids, then we should be discussing when straights kill their kids?

Adoptive parents who went on 'Dr. Phil' charged in girl's murder

The adoptive parents of a 13-year-old North Carolina girl who was tortured before she was killed in 2011 have been charged with first-degree murder, authorities said Tuesday.

Casey and Sandy Parsons, already in prison for tax fraud, were indicted by a grand jury on Monday in the slaying of their teen daughter, Erica Parsons.

 

[Syriusly]

Devout Christians, Carri and Larry Williams lived in Sedro-Woolley, Washington, with their seven biological kids and two adopted children.

Following a complication with the birth of their last child, Carri had been unable to have more.

So in 2008, they adopted a 7-year-old Ethiopian boy who was deaf. It was meant to be…

Carri had studied American Sign Language. The perfect mum for this lad. They also adopted Hana. Both had reportedly been abandoned.

So the children flew to the United States. Hana was thin, but soon filled out.

Carri schooled all the children, while Larry worked for an aircraft firm. The children’s upbringing was disciplined.
On 29 September 2009, Carri and Larry Williams were charged with the manslaughter of Hana, and assault of their adopted son.

They stood trial, with Carri also accused of homicide by abuse.

The adopted boy and five of the biological children gave evidence. He described being given frozen food for dinner, how he’d had to sleep in closets and was hosed down with cold water if he wet the bed.

He told of being beaten and how he and Hana were often forced to sleep outside.

However, the defence painted the young deaf boy as a disobedient troublemaker.

Carri, 42, insisted Hana had killed herself. And lawyers argued that questionable parenting practices didn’t necessarily amount to a crime.

Whispers of Hana’s ‘rebellious’ behaviour reached the community.

A few weeks later, after midnight on 12 May 2011, Carri phoned emergency services. ‘My daughter isn’t breathing,’ she said. She explained Hana, 13, had been in the garden in the cold and rain, refusing to come inside.

‘She was throwing herself to the ground and staggering around the yard after taking her clothes off,’ she explained.

The operator talked Carri through CPR and sent an ambulance. Hana couldn’t be revived. A tragic accident.

But the teenager’s thin body was covered in bruises and bloody marks on her body. She had mud in her mouth.


An autopsy said Hana had died of hypothermia, malnutrition and gastritis – inflammation of the stomach lining.

Just 5ft tall, she weighed 5st 5lb – over 2st less than in 2009 when she’d had a routine checkup at the doctor’s.

She’d been dressed in shorts and a T-shirt. Strange for a cold night… Hana also had a shaved head – a far cry from the long hair she loved.

The remaining Williams children were interviewed and investigators found a controversial book on ‘training’ children in the house. It cited Biblical verses supporting the use of a ‘rod’ for punishment.

Parents killed their adopted daughter in brutal punishment gone wrong

 

[Syriusly]

Adoptive Parents Killed Special Needs Son in Plot Inspired by 'Manchester by the Sea': DA

Ernest Franklin II, 35, and Heather Franklin, 33, allegedly started a fire in their upstate New York home to cover up the death of 16-year-old Jeffrey Franklin last month.

Read: Teacher and Special Needs Student, 8, Killed in Elementary School Murder-Suicide Shooting: Cops

It was all part of a plan the couple hatched in the hours after watching the film Manchester by the Sea with Jeffrey on February 28, according to Chenango County District Attorney Joseph McBride.

"In that movie, Judge, the main character in that movie, kills his children by an accidental fire and is told in the movie that you can't be prosecuted for accidentally killing your children, and within two hours of that movie playing to this defendant and her husband, Jeffrey's deceased," McBride said, according to transcripts obtained by WBNG.

McBride said Heather Franklin, who is pregnant with the couple's child, "inexplicably left the house" and drove around until a fire intentionally set by her husband, engulfed their home with Jeffrey's body inside.

Ernest and Heather are charged with murder in the second degree, arson and tampering with physical evidence.

"[Ernest] claims that a fire was started at his house accidentally when his wife happened to be shopping and he happened to leave the dogs out. There were no animals found in the house. No one else was left in the house, and the defendant, with all due respect, was not injured in any way trying to save the alleged — the victim in this particular case," McBride said.

McBride said examinations of Jeffrey's body found that he'd inhaled no smoke, indicating he died prior to the fire. He suggested the couple killed Jeffrey because of the "very big strain" his special needs were putting on the family.

"The evidence before the court and the evidence in this matter shows that Jeffrey was a handful, that he had bowel issues and he had urine control issues," McBride said.

Both Ernest and Heather Franklin have pleaded not guilty. McBride's statements came Friday at a bail review hearing. Ernest Franklin II is being held on $250,000 cash or $500,000 bond while his wife is being held on $125,000 or $250,000 bond.

 

[Silhouette]

Like tipsy told you on the other thread, if there are sigjns of mental illness in heterosexual, they don't adopt. Trying to copulate with the same gender (while still clinging to dildos & other latent orientation to male characteristics) is an overt & obvious sign of mental illness in women.

This is made worse by lesbians' open expressed intent to deprive kids of a father in their home, for life, by the very terms of their marriage contract. They are telling adoption agents right across the table "we will deprive this orphan boy, for life, of a vital psychological element to him". In layman's terms I'd condense that to "we lesbians are going to mind fuck this boy for life". See my signature link for a lurid example of exactly this type of child abuse.

 

[mdk]

Like tipsy told you on the other thread, if there are signs of mental illness in heterosexual, they don't adopt. Trying to copulate with the same gender (while still clinging to dildos & other latent orientation to male characteristics) is an overt & obvious sign of mental illness in women.

This is made worse by lesbians' open expressed intent to deprive kids of a father in their home, for life, by the very terms of their marriage contract. They are telling adoption agents right across the table "we will deprive this orphan boy, for life, of a vital psychological element to him". In layman's terms I'd condense that to "we lesbians are going to mind fuck this boy for life". See my signature link for a lurid example of exactly this type of cold abuse.

Why is that you talk/think about gay sex more than actual gay people? You need a hobby. Also, a husband.

 

[Syriusly]

Like tipsy told you on the other thread, .

Forget how to use the Post Reply button again Silly?

 

[Syriusly]

In layman's terms I'd condense that to "we lesbians are going to mind fuck this boy for life"..

Yet you advocate policies that would 'mind fuck' all the children of gay couples in America.

 

[Silhouette]

In layman's terms I'd condense that to "we lesbians are going to mind fuck this boy for life"..

Yet you advocate policies that would 'mind fuck' all the children of gay couples in America.

The mind fuck I was referring to was having a contract banishing the boys from ever having a father in their home.

Hetero marriages don't do this. And as far as that goes, divorce is never final until the kids are of age. So you can put that argument back in your talking points bag.

 

[Syriusly]

In layman's terms I'd condense that to "we lesbians are going to mind fuck this boy for life"...

And in layman's terms I'd condense that to 'Silhouette will keep promoting hate to mind fuck the kids of all gays for life"

 

[Syriusly]

In layman's terms I'd condense that to "we lesbians are going to mind fuck this boy for life"..

Yet you advocate policies that would 'mind fuck' all the children of gay couples in America.

Hetero marriages don't do this. .

Yet you do- you continue to promote hate to mind fuck with the kids of gays and lesbians.

What a sick agenda you have.

 

[Silhouette]

Noting that kids share the marriage contract isn't "hate". Noting that boys may not want a father banished from under their roof for life isn't hate.

Justice Thomas warned your ilk about playing victim in the courts. From now on your cult can't smokescreen with victimology. You're going to have to make solid argument why the judge in Dumont should force agencies to place boys in homes where the contract guarantees the boys will never have a father under their roof.

 

[Syriusly]

Noting that kids share the marriage contract isn't "hate". Noting that boys may not want a father banished from under their roof for life isn't hate..

Saying that kids share the marriage contract is just idiocy.

Saying that fathers are banished for life is also just idiocy.

The reason why you say these things- is to harm gays and their children- because of your hatred of gays.

 

[Silhouette]

Saying that kids share the marriage contract is just idiocy.

Well then I guess you're calling the 5 Justices that approved Obergefell "idiots"...

Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
Page 15

"Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” .... Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests."

Let me assemble the underlined above in a single sentence that can logically be extracted: "Marriage confers benefits important to children's best interests"

By naming children as beneficiaries of the marriage contract, the Court declared THEY ARE PARTNERS IN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT. Thereby, sharing a contract with adults, all statutes re: Infancy Doctrine and contracts apply to proposals to revise said contract. Children had no representation at Obergefell, a document which plaintiffs in Dumont will no doubt be citing up one side and down the other. But you cannot cite a mistrial, an illegal proceeding, as justification for a another proceeding.

The judge in Dumont MUST examine that children share the marriage contract with adults and that one of the most profound benefits they used to enjoy before Obergefell illegally revised it, without their having any counsel briefing, was getting a father out of the deal under their roof. Obergefell fundamentally revised the most paramount benefit a child could extract from the marriage contract, vital to them, important, WITHOUT ANY SEPARATE BRIEFING TO THE COURT ON THE PROFUNDITY OF REMOVING A FATHER FROM THEIR LIFE UNDER THEIR ROOF WITH THE SAME REVISED CONTRACT.

Obergefell and any citations from it therefore in justification of Dumont, is a complete legal miscarriage. For many reasons but also because within its own words, it no longer is a speculation if children share the marriage contract with adults. Obergefell's Opinion made it a matter of written case law.

As far as children go, Obergefell said these things:

1. We acknowledge children are important beneficiaries and share the marriage contract with adults.

2. We agreed to a radical revision of said contract, depriving them of one of the most vital benefits they ever got from the contract.

3. We did so without any counsel briefing on how that might affect the lives of children.

4. Children and the Infancy Doctrine can just go suck it.

 

[Syriusly]

Saying that kids share the marriage contract is just idiocy.

Well then I guess you're calling the 5 Justices that approved Obergefell "idiots"...

Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution
Page 15

"Under the laws of the several States, some of marriage’s protections for children and families are material. But marriage also confers more profound benefits. By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” .... Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests."

Let me assemble the underlined above in a single sentence that can logically be extracted: "Marriage confers benefits important to children's best interests".

And nowhere- nowhere in Obergefell do the Justices say that children are part of the marriage contract.

But the justices do say- which you left out deliberately- that what you advocate- harms children.

Quoting the court:

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23).

Why do you want to harm and humiliate children Silhouette?

 

[Silhouette]

I just fucking quoted where it said that you duplicitous lying sack of shit.