Judge Roy Moore of Alabama Can Win If He Does This: Argues For Alabama's Children

[Seawytch]

Sil's still tilting at invisible windmills I see. Hey Sil, my kids are teens now...please have the courts take them from me...pretty please?

 

[Silhouette]

It seems odd that Sil has been unable to show a single case where the Infancy Doctrine was used to invalidate a contract between adults in this nation. It should be remarkably easy if it's such a well established legal fact.

Douglas v Pflueger Hawaii (and case law from various other states cited): FindLaw's Supreme Court of Hawaii case and opinions.

Although the record in the instant case does not indicate the existence of an express/written employment contract, it is undisputed that a contract of employment, albeit oral in nature, was formed at the time Pflueger hired Douglass.   See HRS § 378-1 (1993) (defining employment to mean “any service performed by an individual for another person under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully or unlawfully entered into”) (emphases added)...As previously stated, the parties have raised issues regarding the validity and enforceability of the alleged arbitration agreement and possible waiver of such an agreement.   The threshold question, however, is whether Douglass, as a minor, has an absolute right to disaffirm his employment contract with Pflueger

More:

*******
A. The Infancy Doctrine

 Hawai‘i has long recognized the common law rule-referred to as “the infancy doctrine” or “the infancy law doctrine”-that contracts entered into by minors are voidable.   See, e.g., Jellings v. Pioneer Mill Co., 30 Haw. 184 (1927);  Zen v. Koon Chan, 27 Haw. 369 (1923);  McCandless v. Lansing, 19 Haw. 474 (1909).   Under this doctrine, a minor may, upon reaching the age of majority, choose either to ratify or avoid contractual obligations entered into during his or her minority.   See 4 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 8:14 (4th ed.1992);  see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts, §§ 7, 12, and 14 (1979);  7 Joseph M. Perillo, Corbin on Contracts § 27.4 (2002 ed.).   Traditionally, the reasoning behind the infancy doctrine was based on the well-established common law principles that the law should protect children from the detrimental consequences of their youthful and improvident acts.   As the California Court of Appeals explained in Michaelis v. Schori, 20 Cal.App.4th 133, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 380 (1993):

The rule has traditionally been that the law shields minors from their lack of judgment and experience and under certain conditions vests in them the right to disaffirm their contracts.   Although in many instances such disaffirmance may be a hardship upon those who deal with an infant, the right to avoid his contracts is conferred by law upon a minor for his protection against his own improvidence and the designs of others.   It is the policy of the law to protect a minor against himself and his indiscretions and immaturity as well as against the machinations of other people and to discourage adults from contracting with an infant.   Any loss occasioned by the disaffirmance of a minor's contract might have been avoided by declining to enter into the contract....

...
By the common law, persons, under the age of twenty-one years,[ 4] are not bound by their contracts, except for necessaries, nor can they do any act, to the injury of their property, which they may not avoid, when arrived at full age․

They are allowed to contract for their benefit with power in most cases, to recede from their contract when it may prove prejudicial to them, but in their contract for necessaries, such as board, apparel, medical aid, teaching and instruction, and other necessaries, they are absolutely bound, and may be sued and charged in execution;  but it must appear that the things were absolutely necessary, and suitable to their circumstances, and whoever trusts them does so at his peril, or as it is said, deals with them at arms' length.

********
Essentially, one would have to prove that a mother or father was not a necessity to a child in a marriage contract. That would be like treading water in quicksand, since, marriage was invented to provide children with both a mother and father; and maintained that way for thousands of years up until June 2015..

Save your money and hire excellent lawyers who can argue their way out of a blind alley, because convincing a court that a mother and father were not an implicit benefit or necessity to children in marriage will be like arguing water isn't wet.

 

[mdk]

It seems odd that Sil has been unable to show a single case where the Infancy Doctrine was used to invalidate a contract between adults in this nation. It should be remarkably easy if it's such a well established legal fact.

Douglas v Pflueger Hawaii (and case law from various other states cited): FindLaw's Supreme Court of Hawaii case and opinions.

Although the record in the instant case does not indicate the existence of an express/written employment contract, it is undisputed that a contract of employment, albeit oral in nature, was formed at the time Pflueger hired Douglass.   See HRS § 378-1 (1993) (defining employment to mean “any service performed by an individual for another person under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully or unlawfully entered into”) (emphases added)...As previously stated, the parties have raised issues regarding the validity and enforceability of the alleged arbitration agreement and possible waiver of such an agreement.   The threshold question, however, is whether Douglass, as a minor, has an absolute right to disaffirm his employment contract with Pflueger

More:

*******
A. The Infancy Doctrine

 Hawai‘i has long recognized the common law rule-referred to as “the infancy doctrine” or “the infancy law doctrine”-that contracts entered into by minors are voidable.   See, e.g., Jellings v. Pioneer Mill Co., 30 Haw. 184 (1927);  Zen v. Koon Chan, 27 Haw. 369 (1923);  McCandless v. Lansing, 19 Haw. 474 (1909).   Under this doctrine, a minor may, upon reaching the age of majority, choose either to ratify or avoid contractual obligations entered into during his or her minority.   See 4 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 8:14 (4th ed.1992);  see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts, §§ 7, 12, and 14 (1979);  7 Joseph M. Perillo, Corbin on Contracts § 27.4 (2002 ed.).   Traditionally, the reasoning behind the infancy doctrine was based on the well-established common law principles that the law should protect children from the detrimental consequences of their youthful and improvident acts.   As the California Court of Appeals explained in Michaelis v. Schori, 20 Cal.App.4th 133, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 380 (1993):

The rule has traditionally been that the law shields minors from their lack of judgment and experience and under certain conditions vests in them the right to disaffirm their contracts.   Although in many instances such disaffirmance may be a hardship upon those who deal with an infant, the right to avoid his contracts is conferred by law upon a minor for his protection against his own improvidence and the designs of others.   It is the policy of the law to protect a minor against himself and his indiscretions and immaturity as well as against the machinations of other people and to discourage adults from contracting with an infant.   Any loss occasioned by the disaffirmance of a minor's contract might have been avoided by declining to enter into the contract....

...
By the common law, persons, under the age of twenty-one years,[ 4] are not bound by their contracts, except for necessaries, nor can they do any act, to the injury of their property, which they may not avoid, when arrived at full age․

They are allowed to contract for their benefit with power in most cases, to recede from their contract when it may prove prejudicial to them, but in their contract for necessaries, such as board, apparel, medical aid, teaching and instruction, and other necessaries, they are absolutely bound, and may be sued and charged in execution;  but it must appear that the things were absolutely necessary, and suitable to their circumstances, and whoever trusts them does so at his peril, or as it is said, deals with them at arms' length.

********
Essentially, one would have to prove that a mother or father was not a necessity to a child in a marriage contract. That would be like treading water in quicksand, since, marriage was invented to provide children with both a mother and father; and maintained that way for thousands of years up until June 2015..

Save your money and hire excellent lawyers who can argue their way out of a blind alley, because convincing a court that a mother and father were not an implicit benefit or necessity to children in marriage will be like arguing water isn't wet.

I asked for you to find a case where the Infancy Doctrine was used to invalidate a contract between two adults. Adrian Douglass was a minor, not an adult.

From your own link: "On or about August 31, 2001, Pflueger hired Douglass as a lot technician at the Pflueger Acura car lot in Honolulu, Hawai‘i.   At that time, Douglass was seventeen years old (less than four months shy of the age of majority, i.e., eighteen years 2 )"

Care to try again?

 

[Silhouette]

I asked for you to find a case where the Infancy Doctrine was used to invalidate a contract between two adults. Adrian Douglass was a minor, not an adult...From your own link: "On or about August 31, 2001, Pflueger hired Douglass as a lot technician at the Pflueger Acura car lot in Honolulu, Hawai‘i.   At that time, Douglass was seventeen years old (less than four months shy of the age of majority, i.e., eighteen years 2 )"

If the contract was only between two adults. Except Kennedy enshrined in law that it includes more than just the two people who are adults to the marriage contract. He said so expressly and when he talked about how gay marriage needed to be ratified because of the children left out of the benefits of that contract. Since Kennedy expressed that the marriage contract implicitly includes minors, we can talk about that; since it applies:
**********

Douglas v Pflueger FindLaw's Supreme Court of Hawaii case and opinions.

IV. CONCLUSION

.......As to the first point, Appellant argues that he “was a minor who lacked the legal capacity necessary to make an agreement that could obligate him to arbitrate any of his claims.”  [OB at 20] I believe he is correct.   As a general rule, a contract made by an infant or minor is voidable at the will of the minor, unless the contract is for “necessaries.”   See Garay v. Overholtzer, 332 Md. 339, 631 A.2d 429, 443 (1993) (explaining that “[g]enerally, the law regards contractual obligations of minors as voidable, giving the minor child the choice whether to avoid the contract, or to perform it” and that “t is well established...

...inasmuch as Appellee presumably was well aware of Appellant's status as a minor and the law regarding the capacity of minors to contract is well established...

...“inasmuch as the protections of the infancy doctrine have been incorporated into the statutory scheme of Hawaii's child labor law, the general rule that contracts entered into by minors are voidable is not applicable in the employment context[,]” id. at 529, 135 P.3d at 138.   In doing so, the majority raises statutory arguments not cited to or argued by any of the parties in this case.   By proceeding in this way, the majority reaches beyond the facts here and consequently calls into question the entire framework of laws pertaining to the rights of minors...

...․As the majority observes, the legislature has limited the application of the infancy doctrine, but only in discrete and expressly defined areas....

***********
The case was found in favor of the person who signed a contract as a minor. Would a child's thousands-year old benefit of the marriage contract he shares of having both a mother and father be one of those discrete and rare exceptions to the Infancy Doctrine?

In the event Kennedy didn't affirm children have implicit share in the marriage contract:

Of course the right of two adults to enter into a contract together would be supported by the Constitution ultimately. But if that agreement between them hurts children, New York v Ferber says adults do not enjoy that right.

 

[mdk]

I asked for you to find a case where the Infancy Doctrine was used to invalidate a contract between two adults. Adrian Douglass was a minor, not an adult...From your own link: "On or about August 31, 2001, Pflueger hired Douglass as a lot technician at the Pflueger Acura car lot in Honolulu, Hawai‘i.   At that time, Douglass was seventeen years old (less than four months shy of the age of majority, i.e., eighteen years 2 )"

If the contract was only between two adults. Except Kennedy enshrined in law that it includes more than just the two people who are adults to the marriage contract. He said so expressly and when he talked about how gay marriage needed to be ratified because of the children left out of the benefits of that contract. Since Kennedy expressed that the marriage contract implicitly includes minors, we can talk about that; since it applies:
**********

Douglas v Pflueger FindLaw's Supreme Court of Hawaii case and opinions.

IV. CONCLUSION

.......As to the first point, Appellant argues that he “was a minor who lacked the legal capacity necessary to make an agreement that could obligate him to arbitrate any of his claims.”  [OB at 20] I believe he is correct.   As a general rule, a contract made by an infant or minor is voidable at the will of the minor, unless the contract is for “necessaries.”   See Garay v. Overholtzer, 332 Md. 339, 631 A.2d 429, 443 (1993) (explaining that “[g]enerally, the law regards contractual obligations of minors as voidable, giving the minor child the choice whether to avoid the contract, or to perform it” and that “t is well established...

...inasmuch as Appellee presumably was well aware of Appellant's status as a minor and the law regarding the capacity of minors to contract is well established...

...“inasmuch as the protections of the infancy doctrine have been incorporated into the statutory scheme of Hawaii's child labor law, the general rule that contracts entered into by minors are voidable is not applicable in the employment context[,]” id. at 529, 135 P.3d at 138.   In doing so, the majority raises statutory arguments not cited to or argued by any of the parties in this case.   By proceeding in this way, the majority reaches beyond the facts here and consequently calls into question the entire framework of laws pertaining to the rights of minors...

...․As the majority observes, the legislature has limited the application of the infancy doctrine, but only in discrete and expressly defined areas....

***********
The case was found in favor of the person who signed a contract as a minor. Would a child's thousands-year old benefit of the marriage contract he shares of having both a mother and father be one of those discrete and rare exceptions to the Infancy Doctrine?

Your attempts to save face are comical, but this still isn't a case that invalidated a contract between adults. You can't find a legal case b/c your personal wishes/delusions concerning the Infancy Doctrine do not having any bearing on the actual law.

 

[Montrovant]

I asked for you to find a case where the Infancy Doctrine was used to invalidate a contract between two adults. Adrian Douglass was a minor, not an adult...From your own link: "On or about August 31, 2001, Pflueger hired Douglass as a lot technician at the Pflueger Acura car lot in Honolulu, Hawai‘i.   At that time, Douglass was seventeen years old (less than four months shy of the age of majority, i.e., eighteen years 2 )"

If the contract was only between two adults. Except Kennedy enshrined in law that it includes more than just the two people who are adults to the marriage contract. He said so expressly and when he talked about how gay marriage needed to be ratified because of the children left out of the benefits of that contract. Since Kennedy expressed that the marriage contract implicitly includes minors, we can talk about that; since it applies:
**********

Douglas v Pflueger FindLaw's Supreme Court of Hawaii case and opinions.

IV. CONCLUSION

.......As to the first point, Appellant argues that he “was a minor who lacked the legal capacity necessary to make an agreement that could obligate him to arbitrate any of his claims.”  [OB at 20] I believe he is correct.   As a general rule, a contract made by an infant or minor is voidable at the will of the minor, unless the contract is for “necessaries.”   See Garay v. Overholtzer, 332 Md. 339, 631 A.2d 429, 443 (1993) (explaining that “[g]enerally, the law regards contractual obligations of minors as voidable, giving the minor child the choice whether to avoid the contract, or to perform it” and that “t is well established...

...inasmuch as Appellee presumably was well aware of Appellant's status as a minor and the law regarding the capacity of minors to contract is well established...

...“inasmuch as the protections of the infancy doctrine have been incorporated into the statutory scheme of Hawaii's child labor law, the general rule that contracts entered into by minors are voidable is not applicable in the employment context[,]” id. at 529, 135 P.3d at 138.   In doing so, the majority raises statutory arguments not cited to or argued by any of the parties in this case.   By proceeding in this way, the majority reaches beyond the facts here and consequently calls into question the entire framework of laws pertaining to the rights of minors...

...․As the majority observes, the legislature has limited the application of the infancy doctrine, but only in discrete and expressly defined areas....

***********
The case was found in favor of the person who signed a contract as a minor. Would a child's thousands-year old benefit of the marriage contract he shares of having both a mother and father be one of those discrete and rare exceptions to the Infancy Doctrine?

In the event Kennedy didn't affirm children have implicit share in the marriage contract:

Of course the right of two adults to enter into a contract together would be supported by the Constitution ultimately. But if that agreement between them hurts children, New York v Ferber says adults do not enjoy that right.

Marriage contracts have nothing to do with the infancy doctrine, unless one of the married persons is a minor, perhaps. That is because the infancy doctrine is about, per your own post, a contract made by an infant or minor. The marriage of a minor's parents is not a contract made by that minor. Infancy doctrine does not apply.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage contracts have nothing to do with the infancy doctrine, unless one of the married persons is a minor, perhaps. That is because the infancy doctrine is about, per your own post, a contract made by an infant or minor. The marriage of a minor's parents is not a contract made by that minor. Infancy doctrine does not apply.

So your assertion is that contract where children have an implicit share to, can exist to their detriment? You're wrong you know.

But let's say you're right (you aren't). New York vs Ferber says that while two adults may exercise their 1st Amendment & enter into contracts together as one of their guarantees (freedom of association), they may not do so if it that contract contains terms that harm children. So, between the Infancy Doctrine and New York vs Ferber, legally-stripping a child of either a mother or father for life isn't allowed. It's illegal.

 

[Montrovant]

Marriage contracts have nothing to do with the infancy doctrine, unless one of the married persons is a minor, perhaps. That is because the infancy doctrine is about, per your own post, a contract made by an infant or minor. The marriage of a minor's parents is not a contract made by that minor. Infancy doctrine does not apply.

So your assertion is that contract where children have an implicit share to, can exist to their detriment? You're wrong you know.

But let's say you're right (you aren't). New York vs Ferber says that while two adults may exercise their 1st Amendment & enter into contracts together as one of their guarantees (freedom of association), they may not do so if it that contract contains terms that harm children. So, between the Infancy Doctrine and New York vs Ferber, legally-stripping a child of either a mother or father for life isn't allowed. It's illegal.

Considering you haven't been able to provide one single court case, divorce settlement, ruling, or court opinion which backs your claims about the infancy doctrine, I'll go ahead and not take your word for it.

 

[sealybobo]

By your logic, then, if Kids have more rights than the adults, then.

Divorce should be forbidden under ANY Circumstances if there is a child under 18.
unwed mothers should be compelled to marry their baby-daddies

I mean,right? I promise you, more kids will be adversely effected by THOSE two things than will ever be impacted by a gay couple adopting.

I feel so sorry for the kids from Asia and Guatamala I know that were adopted by loving gays and they are living much better lives than 99% of the poor white trash christian heteros that produce Americas uneducated blue collar.

The reason fdr did the new deal was to help the poor white masses.

 

[mdk]

Marriage contracts have nothing to do with the infancy doctrine, unless one of the married persons is a minor, perhaps. That is because the infancy doctrine is about, per your own post, a contract made by an infant or minor. The marriage of a minor's parents is not a contract made by that minor. Infancy doctrine does not apply.

So your assertion is that contract where children have an implicit share to, can exist to their detriment? You're wrong you know.

But let's say you're right (you aren't). New York vs Ferber says that while two adults may exercise their 1st Amendment & enter into contracts together as one of their guarantees (freedom of association), they may not do so if it that contract contains terms that harm children. So, between the Infancy Doctrine and New York vs Ferber, legally-stripping a child of either a mother or father for life isn't allowed. It's illegal.

Still can't cite a single case where the Infancy Doctrine was used to invalidate a contract between adults. Not surprising. We both know you're full of shit.

 

[Silhouette]

I feel so sorry for the kids from Asia and Guatamala I know that were adopted by loving gays and they are living much better lives than 99% of the poor white trash christian heteros that produce Americas uneducated blue collar.

The reason fdr did the new deal was to help the poor white masses.

Let me guess...the gay men adopted boys. It's funny how they always seem to prefer them in the adoption process like 95% of the time. They like those boys from broken homes. Just ask Harvey Milk..

 

[mdk]

Let me guess...the gay men adopted boys. It's funny how they always seem to prefer them in the adoption process like 95% of the time.

Besides your imagination, what evidence do you have to suggest that gay men always seem to adopt boys 95% of the time? Is this the inevitable part of the conversation where you suggest they are only doing so for perfidious purposes?

Find a case yet? lol

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage contracts have nothing to do with the infancy doctrine, unless one of the married persons is a minor, perhaps. That is because the infancy doctrine is about, per your own post, a contract made by an infant or minor. The marriage of a minor's parents is not a contract made by that minor. Infancy doctrine does not apply.

So your assertion is that contract where children have an implicit share to, can exist to their detriment? You're wrong you know.

But let's say you're right (you aren't). New York vs Ferber says that while two adults may exercise their 1st Amendment & enter into contracts together as one of their guarantees (freedom of association), they may not do so if it that contract contains terms that harm children. So, between the Infancy Doctrine and New York vs Ferber, legally-stripping a child of either a mother or father for life isn't allowed. It's illegal.

Considering you haven't been able to provide one single court case, divorce settlement, ruling, or court opinion which backs your claims about the infancy doctrine, I'll go ahead and not take your word for it.

Did you miss post #304? The law applies. Or perhaps you'll need a primer on New York v Ferber. Do you believe that if tested against the Infancy Doctrine & New York v Ferber, two adults will still be allowed to create a contract which has terms that create a detriment to children (of whom Kennedy averred have an implicit need for the marriage contract) for their entire life?

I mean, fantasize on bro. We don't hurt children in this country as a legal institution. When we find that happening, we use the courts and the multitude of child-protection laws to make it stop. Are you claiming this country doesn't err on the side of child protection? If that's your argument, GOOD LUCK.

Enshrining a legal institution as a favor to adult sexual lifestyles that systematically and fundamentally strips a child for life of either a mother or father in contract, is both perverse and a form of institutionalized child abuse. Obergefell stands diametrically opposed to reams upon reams of child abuse statutes and psychological studies and sociological studies and studies on drug abuse in youth, prostitution in youth, poor school performance in youth, etc. etc. etc.

 

[mdk]

Did you miss post #304? The law applies. Or perhaps you'll need a primer on New York v Ferber. Do you believe that if tested against the Infancy Doctrine & New York v Ferber, two adults will still be allowed to create a contract which has terms that create a detriment to children for their entire life?

The next time the Infancy Doctrine is used to invalidate a contract between two adults will be the first.

 

[Silhouette]

How about the next time New York vs Ferber is used to deny someone their Constitutional rights because of what those rights do to children?

Entering into a contract is the right of association. When it hurts children...well...just read New York vs Ferber USSC. New York v. Ferber (1982)

 

[mdk]

How about the next time New York vs Ferber is used to deny someone their Constitutional rights because of what those rights do to children?

Entering into a contract is the right of association. When it hurts children...well...just read New York vs Ferber USSC. New York v. Ferber (1982)

You can't find a single case where Ferber was used to invalidate a marriage contract either. This is why your legal prediction rate is such shit. You cite the law the way you wish it to be instead of citing actual law.

 

[Silhouette]

How about the next time New York vs Ferber is used to deny someone their Constitutional rights because of what those rights do to children?

Entering into a contract is the right of association. When it hurts children...well...just read New York vs Ferber USSC. New York v. Ferber (1982)

You can't find a single case where Ferber was used to invalidate a marriage contract either. This is why your legal prediction rate is such shit. You cite the law the way you wish it to be instead of citing actual law.

And you can't find a single case about real estate rights on the moon either...yet...because the future is still in the future.. But we can find that New York vs Ferber said Ferber didn't have a right to free speech when it came to selling child pornography. The court's reasoning? If an adult exercising a civil right hurts children either physically or psychologically, the adult can't exercise that right.

Does or does not missing a mother or father for life hurt a child psychologically? Nevermind that lots of children are in single parent homes (the reason marriage was invented to remedy); simply put, without regard to anything whatsoever but itself: do children missing either a mother or father in life experience a greater or same or lesser amount of hardship and peril compared to their peers? (especially think: boys missing their father or girls missing their mother)

It's OK. We both know the answer to that question, and how Ferber applies to it.

 

[mdk]

And you can't find a single case about real estate rights on the moon either...yet...because the future is still in the future.. But we can find that New York vs Ferber said Ferber didn't have a right to free speech when it came to selling child pornography. The court's reasoning? If an adult exercising a civil right hurts children either physically or psychologically, the adult can't exercise that right

Oh, so you're citing how those laws will be applied in some imaginary future. Are using tea leaves or tarot cards to divine said future? Using your Ferber logic divorce would be illegal as well.

Does or does not missing a mother or father for life hurt a child psychologically?

You tell me. You're the one with experience when it comes to children not having a father.

 

[Silhouette]

That's how court cases work mdk. They all have not already happened yet. Are you well? Did they change your medication recently?

 

[mdk]

That's how court cases work mdk. They all have not already happened yet. Are you well? Did they change your medication recently?

I am sure any day now the Infancy Doctrine is going to be used to invalidate a contract between two adults. Any day now...

I am always well and, believe it or not, I hope you are also. You are a loon, but I still wish you all the best in life.