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

[mdk]

Does anyone know which (mandatory) attorney is briefing the court on behalf of children's stake in marriage/adoption in Dumont v Lyon? I'd like to send him an email.

How does one send an email to your imagination?

 

[Silhouette]

Does anyone know which (mandatory) attorney is briefing the court on behalf of children's stake in marriage/adoption in Dumont v Lyon? I'd like to send him an email.

How does one send an email to your imagination?

Oh, so this also is a mistrial.

Thanks for the head's up. I'll contact the court instead and ask them who is briefing on behalf of children.

 

[mdk]

Does anyone know which (mandatory) attorney is briefing the court on behalf of children's stake in marriage/adoption in Dumont v Lyon? I'd like to send him an email.

How does one send an email to your imagination?

Oh, so this also is a mistrial.

Thanks for the head's up. I'll contact the court instead and ask them who is briefing on behalf of children.

I am sure your email will receive the attention it so richly deserves.

 

[Syriusly]

Every marriage contract anticipates children, whether or not they arrive. Just as every business contract anticipates profits whether or not they arrive.

Marriage was and is a word created from its inception to be a contract to benefit children the world agrees are anticipated to arrive.

just because the voices in your head tell you this- doesn't mean any of it is true.

Every marriage contract certainly doesn't 'anticipate' children- when my 80 year old uncle married his 70 year old bride- no children were anticipated.

And when Wisconsin allows first cousins to marry- they have to prove that they are physically incapable of having children- not only are children not anticipated- they have to prove that they cannot have children together.

As always- you are just lying.

To harm gays- and their children.

 

[Syriusly]

Does anyone know which (mandatory) attorney is briefing the court on behalf of children's stake in marriage/adoption in Dumont v Lyon? I'd like to send him an email.

Ask the voices in your head- that is the source of virtually everything else you post.

 

[Silhouette]

Pretty sure that required counsel briefing the courts is not a matter of "voices in my head". It's a matter of law.

 

[mdk]

Pretty sure that required counsel briefing the courts is not a matter of "voices in my head". It's a matter of law.

Your wild interpretation of the law isn’t recognized in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one.

 

[Silhouette]

Pretty sure that required counsel briefing the courts is not a matter of "voices in my head". It's a matter of law.

Your wild interpretation of the law isn’t recognized in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one.

Requiring all parties to a case to have counsel briefing the court is not a "wild interpretation of the law". Idiot.

 

[mdk]

Pretty sure that required counsel briefing the courts is not a matter of "voices in my head". It's a matter of law.

Your wild interpretation of the law isn’t recognized in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one.

Requiring all parties to a case to have counsel briefing the court is not a "wild interpretation of the law". Idiot.

And yet not one jurisdiction recognizes your interpretation. You keep searching for a silver bullet to end gay marriage and you always come up laughably empty. I am shocked you have not cited Ferber and The Prince’s Trust yet. lol

 

[Syriusly]

Pretty sure that required counsel briefing the courts is not a matter of "voices in my head". It's a matter of law.

Pretty sure your interpretation of everything legal is based upon the voices in your head and is pure fantasy.

 

[Syriusly]

Pretty sure that required counsel briefing the courts is not a matter of "voices in my head". It's a matter of law.

Your wild interpretation of the law isn’t recognized in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one.

Requiring all parties to a case to have counsel briefing the court is not a "wild interpretation of the law". Idiot.

And yet not one jurisdiction recognizes your interpretation. You keep searching for a silver bullet to end gay marriage and you always come up laughably empty. I am shocked you have not cited Ferber and The Prince’s Trust yet. lol

Or the Pope being blackmailed to resign by the ebil Gays- or Root killing the black church members because of gay marriage and what about the "Mayo Clinic' study that was not a Mayo Clinic study.....

The depths of delusion.....

 

[Silhouette]

Pretty sure that required counsel briefing the courts is not a matter of "voices in my head". It's a matter of law.

Your wild interpretation of the law isn’t recognized in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one.

Requiring all parties to a case to have counsel briefing the court is not a "wild interpretation of the law". Idiot.

And yet not one jurisdiction recognizes your interpretation.

Bermuda used a silver bullet...

Not one jurisdiction recognized black equal rights in the early 20th Century. But that didn't stop them from happening. Unanimous court fuck-ups don't make a wrong thing right.

ALL parties to a case must have counsel briefing. That's the end of that story. Thanks for playing.

 

[mdk]

Pretty sure that required counsel briefing the courts is not a matter of "voices in my head". It's a matter of law.

Your wild interpretation of the law isn’t recognized in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one.

Requiring all parties to a case to have counsel briefing the court is not a "wild interpretation of the law". Idiot.

And yet not one jurisdiction recognizes your interpretation. You keep searching for a silver bullet to end gay marriage and you always come up laughably empty. I am shocked you have not cited Ferber and The Prince’s Trust yet. lol

Or the Pope being blackmailed to resign by the ebil Gays- or Root killing the black church members because of gay marriage and what about the "Mayo Clinic' study that was not a Mayo Clinic study.....

The depths of delusion.....

Chris Mercer killed all those people in Oregon over gay marriage. Sil claimed he was gay on the basis that he liked romantic comedies on his online dating profile. lol

 

[mdk]

Bermuda used a silver bullet...

Not one jurisdiction recognized black equal rights in the early 20th Century. But that didn't stop them from happening. Unanimous court fuck-ups don't make a wrong thing right.

ALL parties to a case must have counsel briefing. That's the end of that story. Thanks for playing.

 

[Silhouette]

That's a nice strawman mdk. Meanwhile, do or do not all parties to a case require counsel to brief the court? It's OK, take your time. I know this one is gonna be hard for you.

 

[mdk]

That's a nice strawman mdk. Meanwhile, do or do not all parties to a case require counsel to brief the court? It's OK, take your time. I know this one is gonna be hard for you.

The foundation of your argument is that children are parties to the marriage contract of their parents. That legal standard exists only in that obsessive wasteland you call a mind.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ The standard was set in Obergefell when they said that children are parties that derive direct benefits from the marriage contract. Read the third tier of Obergefell's rationale partner.

This is interesting, you might want to read up on it mdk. Comes from the State of California in 2015 about a civil case on placing dependent children in a marriage situation that was in turmoil. Important to take away is that in a case where children have a weighty stake, this is what the court and the State of CA have to say:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BTB_23_5E_1.pdf (page 1-2)

Separate counsel are appointed for the mother, father, and the children... 2. Competency. What does it mean to be "competent" to handle dependency cases? California Rule of Court 5.660(d)(1)-(6) states: "(d) Competent counsel--Every party in a dependency proceeding who is represented by an attorney is entitled to competent counsel. (1) Definition - "Competent counsel" means an attorney who is a member in good standing of the State Bar of California, who has participated in training in the law of juvenile dependency, and who demonstrates adequate forensic skills, knowledge and comprehension of the statutory scheme, the purposes and goals of dependency proceedings, the specific statutes, rules of court, and cases relevant to such proceedings, and procedures for filing petitions for extraordinary writs....

(4) Standards of representation - Attorneys or their agents are expected to meet regularly with clients, including clients who are children, regardless of the age of the child or the child's ability to communicate verbally, to contact social workers and other professionals associated with the client's case, to work with other counsel and the court to resolve disputed aspects of a case without contested hearing, and to adhere to the mandated timelines. The attorney for the child must have sufficient contact with the child to establish and maintain an adequate and professional attorney-client relationship. The attorney for the child is not required to assume the responsibilities of a social worker and is not expected to perform service for the child that are unrelated to the child's legal representation.

I'll ask again: what are the names of the separate counsel appointed or invited to brief the court on behalf of children in the case where two lesbians seek to force adoption agencies to place dependent children into their lifelong contract which banishes said children from a father?

More:

(pages 4-5)

...a competent attorney should have an understanding of the role of the social worker; visitation related issues, including bonding and attachment; ICWA, and culturally appropriate services; addiction and treatment, including drug use and abuse; drug testing types, procedures and protocol, including the interpretation of test results; mental illness, including dual diagnosis issues, diagnosis of mental illness, an understanding psychological evaluations and the tests; trauma and the effects on children, and domestic violence in the home; childhood development; schools and special education requirements; CASA; ...(etc etc)

Who is the competent child attorney appointed in Dumont v Lyon with regard to contractual banishment for life from a father and its predicted effects on any child placed in that home by force from unwilling adoption agencies?

 

[mdk]

^^ The standard was set in Obergefell when they said that children are parties that derive direct benefits from the marriage contract. Read the third tier of Obergefell's rationale partner.

This is interesting, you might want to read up on it mdk. Comes from the State of California in 2015 about a civil case on placing dependent children in a marriage situation that was in turmoil. Important to take away is that in a case where children have a weighty stake, this is what the court and the State of CA have to say:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/BTB_23_5E_1.pdf (page 1-2)

Separate counsel are appointed for the mother, father, and the children... 2. Competency. What does it mean to be "competent" to handle dependency cases? California Rule of Court 5.660(d)(1)-(6) states: "(d) Competent counsel--Every party in a dependency proceeding who is represented by an attorney is entitled to competent counsel. (1) Definition - "Competent counsel" means an attorney who is a member in good standing of the State Bar of California, who has participated in training in the law of juvenile dependency, and who demonstrates adequate forensic skills, knowledge and comprehension of the statutory scheme, the purposes and goals of dependency proceedings, the specific statutes, rules of court, and cases relevant to such proceedings, and procedures for filing petitions for extraordinary writs....

(4) Standards of representation - Attorneys or their agents are expected to meet regularly with clients, including clients who are children, regardless of the age of the child or the child's ability to communicate verbally, to contact social workers and other professionals associated with the client's case, to work with other counsel and the court to resolve disputed aspects of a case without contested hearing, and to adhere to the mandated timelines. The attorney for the child must have sufficient contact with the child to establish and maintain an adequate and professional attorney-client relationship. The attorney for the child is not required to assume the responsibilities of a social worker and is not expected to perform service for the child that are unrelated to the child's legal representation.

I'll ask again: what are the names of the separate counsel appointed or invited to brief the court on behalf of children in the case where two lesbians seek to force adoption agencies to place dependent children into their lifelong contract which banishes said children from a father?

More:

(pages 4-5)

...a competent attorney should have an understanding of the role of the social worker; visitation related issues, including bonding and attachment; ICWA, and culturally appropriate services; addiction and treatment, including drug use and abuse; drug testing types, procedures and protocol, including the interpretation of test results; mental illness, including dual diagnosis issues, diagnosis of mental illness, an understanding psychological evaluations and the tests; trauma and the effects on children, and domestic violence in the home; childhood development; schools and special education requirements; CASA; ...(etc etc)

Who is the competent child attorney appointed in Dumont v Lyon with regard to contractual banishment for life from a father and its predicted effects on any child placed in that home by force from unwilling adoption agencies?

No, it wasn’t.

Also, why do you cite Obergefell if you believe the ruling to be null and void?

 

[Syriusly]

Pretty sure that required counsel briefing the courts is not a matter of "voices in my head". It's a matter of law.

Your wild interpretation of the law isn’t recognized in any jurisdiction in this nation. Not one.

Requiring all parties to a case to have counsel briefing the court is not a "wild interpretation of the law". Idiot.

And yet not one jurisdiction recognizes your interpretation.

ALL parties to a case must have counsel briefing. That's the end of that story. Thanks for playing.

And every legal relevant party had counsel representing them in court.

The end of the story was Obergefell.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ The standard was set in Obergefell when they said that children are parties that derive direct benefits from the marriage contract. Read the third tier of Obergefell's rationale partner.

No- Obergefell points out that children are among the parties injured by discriminatory marriage laws- and that what you promote hurts children.

Why do you keep demanding that children be injured- as per Obergefell?