Adoption isn’t a contract. The Infancy Doctrine applies to monetary contracts
The marriage contract the two lesbians are trying to force boys & girls into via adoption is a contract. It's a contract the children will share with adults.
By the way, while you're reading up on the Infancy Doctrine, be sure to read the parts about contracts with adults affording PSYCHOLOGICAL necessities to children. Nothing about money in that.
Where's the counsel for Michigan's orphans in Dumont? You'd think a contract shared between adults & kids would have kids' counsel briefing the court.
Because there is no contract. Adoption is not a contract. There are no obligation imposed on children when they are adopted.
The children have no Counsel because their rights aren’t being affected by the adoption.
But the children would ostensibly be placed into a contractual bind if adopted out by force to the two lesbians. That contractual bind is the promise of no hope of a father for life for sons or daughters adopted to them. So when they step across the threshold of that lesbian house, after the adoption is handed to them, the orphans will immediately be sharing the binding terms of the lesbian's marriage contract which say "there will be no father in this married home for life. Any children involved under this roof will not have a father, ever." Ergo the marriage contract is up for discussion and would be discussed by any counsel appointed for Michigan's orphans (and all children in the US by extension of the precedent) as applicable to whether or not adoption agencies must be forced to place children in a home that flaunts there will never be a father, by contractual bind.
Part of adoption is application and approval. When placing orphans, the State has a vested interest in any contract in the home which might come between those orphans and happiness/well adjusted living. Removing all hope of a necessity for boys like a father is not something to be waived into approval by layman judicial activists without first at least hearing briefing from the children who will be the most impacted by said precedent, BEFORE is is set in stone.
Had my adoption been blocked because of my father’s health, I would have been returned to my biological mother after his death. Instead of being raised in a loving single parent home, I would have been returned to her custody, to be beaten, abused and raped like my sister.
Your emphasis on two opposite parents adopting children would sentence the millions of children who are adopted by single parents or same sex couples to a life of insecurity and abuse within the foster care system. Far more damaging than a loving home with a non-traditional family.
It is more important for a child to have a family that gives them love and security than to insist that only “perfect homes” adopt.
Despite the difficulties that my father’s death created, I was so much better off than I ever would have been in my biological mother’s home, or in foster care than I ever would have been with two opposite sex parents who didn’t love me, want me, and who would have subjected me to horrific abuse.
My sister went through her early adult life a total mess. Her physical and mental health was destroyed by the abuse. She’s in a good place now mentally, but the toll on her physical health cannot be undone. She is dying from heart problems and auto-immune disorders from the stress she endured.
On the other hand I have excellent physical health and have never suffered the way my sister has.
A loving home is better than no home, even if it’s not perfect.
