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

[Syriusly]

Not one lawyer, judge, law clerk, paralegal or Supreme court justice agrees with you. Isn't that a clue that you are not the finest legal mind in the nation.

The orphaned boys of the State of Michigan most definitely do have a vested interest in this civil family law case of Dumont v Lyon where the petitioners seek to use a contract to set a precedent whereupon all of them will be potentially forced to be bound away for life from a father.

Many legal experts are weak in the Infancy Doctrine. Hence the reason I keep posting the link to its requirements for kids to have mandatory representation at such hearings; so they can educate themselves. In fact, the Santa Clara Law Review that discusses this Doctrine, states over and over in its treatise that BECAUSE such information is lacking in the legal community, they in fact embarked upon the discussion for the legal community, naming their review "Infancy Doctrine Inquiries". Why inquire when you already know or are an expert? Because the fact is most legal people DON'T know and aren't even remotely expert in the Infancy Doctrine; which is still binding law and supported by tons and tons of case law. Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf.

And they certainly aren't learning what the Infancy Doctrine is from your posts- here is the relevant quote from your citation- which you intentionally ignore.

 

[Dragonlady]

Not one lawyer, judge, law clerk, paralegal or Supreme court justice agrees with you. Isn't that a clue that you are not the finest legal mind in the nation.

The orphaned boys of the State of Michigan most definitely do have a vested interest in this civil family law case of Dumont v Lyon where the petitioners seek to use a contract to set a precedent whereupon all of them will be potentially forced to be bound away for life from a father.

Many legal experts are weak in the Infancy Doctrine. Hence the reason I keep posting the link to its requirements for kids to have mandatory representation at such hearings; so they can educate themselves. In fact, the Santa Clara Law Review that discusses this Doctrine, states over and over in its treatise that BECAUSE such information is lacking in the legal community, they in fact embarked upon the discussion for the legal community, naming their review "Infancy Doctrine Inquiries". Why inquire when you already know or are an expert? Because the fact is most legal people DON'T know and aren't even remotely expert in the Infancy Doctrine; which is still binding law and supported by tons and tons of case law. Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf.

And they certainly aren't learning what the Infancy Doctrine is from your posts- here is the relevant quote from your citation- which you intentionally ignore.

View attachment 180519

No we’re not ignoring that part of the law. That’s the part we referenced which makes it clear that the law pertains ONLY to contracts for goods or services or that imposed obligations on the child. Adoption is NOT a contract between the child and the parent.

Your suggestion that knowledge of the Infancy Doctrine is weak. You couldn’t be more wrong. Lawyers, retailers and vendors are well aware of what it means. The law is well known those who engage in commerce who know that they can’t hold minors to financial contracts because of it.

Every gay/lesbian couple I know has many surrogates for opposite sex parents. Aunts, uncles, cousins, friends - just like straight couples or single parents.

Your arguments don’t stand up to even the slightest amount of scrutiny and your ignorance is exceeded only by your bigotry.

 

[Silhouette]

Not one lawyer, judge, law clerk, paralegal or Supreme court justice agrees with you. Isn't that a clue that you are not the finest legal mind in the nation.

The orphaned boys of the State of Michigan most definitely do have a vested interest in this civil family law case of Dumont v Lyon where the petitioners seek to use a contract to set a precedent whereupon all of them will be potentially forced to be bound away for life from a father.

Many legal experts are weak in the Infancy Doctrine. Hence the reason I keep posting the link to its requirements for kids to have mandatory representation at such hearings; so they can educate themselves. In fact, the Santa Clara Law Review that discusses this Doctrine, states over and over in its treatise that BECAUSE such information is lacking in the legal community, they in fact embarked upon the discussion for the legal community, naming their review "Infancy Doctrine Inquiries". Why inquire when you already know or are an expert? Because the fact is most legal people DON'T know and aren't even remotely expert in the Infancy Doctrine; which is still binding law and supported by tons and tons of case law. Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf.

And they certainly aren't learning what the Infancy Doctrine is from your posts- here is the relevant quote from your citation- which you intentionally ignore.

No we’re not ignoring that part of the law. That’s the part we referenced which makes it clear that the law pertains ONLY to contracts for goods or services or that imposed obligations on the child. Adoption is NOT a contract between the child and the parent.

Then why is there language that supports psychological necessities for children as well? Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

Footnote page 54: 33. Id. ....Russell v Buck, 68 A. 2d 691, 694 (Vt. 1949) ....In a similar vein to Russell, one court held that.....the term necessaries is limited "to articles of personal use necessary for the support of the body and improvement of the mind of the infant..."

I wonder if binding a father away from a boy for life using a contract would be in violation of necessaries re: the Infancy Doctrine's case law support?

 

[Syriusly]

Not one lawyer, judge, law clerk, paralegal or Supreme court justice agrees with you. Isn't that a clue that you are not the finest legal mind in the nation.

The orphaned boys of the State of Michigan most definitely do have a vested interest in this civil family law case of Dumont v Lyon where the petitioners seek to use a contract to set a precedent whereupon all of them will be potentially forced to be bound away for life from a father.

Many legal experts are weak in the Infancy Doctrine. Hence the reason I keep posting the link to its requirements for kids to have mandatory representation at such hearings; so they can educate themselves. In fact, the Santa Clara Law Review that discusses this Doctrine, states over and over in its treatise that BECAUSE such information is lacking in the legal community, they in fact embarked upon the discussion for the legal community, naming their review "Infancy Doctrine Inquiries". Why inquire when you already know or are an expert? Because the fact is most legal people DON'T know and aren't even remotely expert in the Infancy Doctrine; which is still binding law and supported by tons and tons of case law. Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf.

And they certainly aren't learning what the Infancy Doctrine is from your posts- here is the relevant quote from your citation- which you intentionally ignore.

No we’re not ignoring that part of the law. That’s the part we referenced which makes it clear that the law pertains ONLY to contracts for goods or services or that imposed obligations on the child. Adoption is NOT a contract between the child and the parent.

Then why is there language that supports psychological necessities for children as well? Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

Footnote page 54: 33. Id. ....Russell v Buck, 68 A. 2d 691, 694 (Vt. 1949) ....In a similar vein to Russell, one court held that.....the term necessaries is limited "to articles of personal use necessary for the support of the body and improvement of the mind of the infant..."

Remember again- necessities in Infancy Doctrine means those expenses that a child is liable for within a contract.

Only you would create a fantasy that would take that to mean that a father is an 'article of personal use'- that a child is responsible for paying for.

 

[Syriusly]

Not one lawyer, judge, law clerk, paralegal or Supreme court justice agrees with you. Isn't that a clue that you are not the finest legal mind in the nation.

The orphaned boys of the State of Michigan most definitely do have a vested interest in this civil family law case of Dumont v Lyon where the petitioners seek to use a contract to set a precedent whereupon all of them will be potentially forced to be bound away for life from a father.

Many legal experts are weak in the Infancy Doctrine. Hence the reason I keep posting the link to its requirements for kids to have mandatory representation at such hearings; so they can educate themselves. In fact, the Santa Clara Law Review that discusses this Doctrine, states over and over in its treatise that BECAUSE such information is lacking in the legal community, they in fact embarked upon the discussion for the legal community, naming their review "Infancy Doctrine Inquiries". Why inquire when you already know or are an expert? Because the fact is most legal people DON'T know and aren't even remotely expert in the Infancy Doctrine; which is still binding law and supported by tons and tons of case law. Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf.

And they certainly aren't learning what the Infancy Doctrine is from your posts- here is the relevant quote from your citation- which you intentionally ignore.

No we’re not ignoring that part of the law. That’s the part we referenced which makes it clear that the law pertains ONLY to contracts for goods or services or that imposed obligations on the child. Adoption is NOT a contract between the child and the parent.

I wonder if binding a father away from a boy for life using a contract would be in violation of necessaries re: the Infancy Doctrine's case law support?

You wonder all sorts of crazy shit- but the quick and easy answer is no.

There is no contract possible that would 'bind a father away from a boy for life- remember in virtually all adoptions- the father has abandoned the child. Certainly the father has lost all legal rights in regards to the child.

But that doesn't mean that the adoptive parents may not allow the biological father to participate as father in the child's life.

I actually know of a situation where this happened- the mother was a drug addict who abandoned the father, and had her kids removed by the courts. The father voluntarily gave up his rights for the benefit of the kids.

The couple that adopted the kids allowed him to be in the kids lives both in school and with regular visits.

But hey- don't let real actual experiences interfere with your bigoted efforts to harm children and gays.

 

[Silhouette]

Well marriages are contracts. I guess we can leave it up to the attorney for the orphans of Michigan briefing Dumont to argue the points in briefing to the court, as required.

 

[Syriusly]

Well marriages are contracts. I guess we can leave it up to the attorney for the orphans of Michigan briefing Dumont to argue the points in briefing to the court, as required.

I guess that will be the imaginary attorney, like the imaginary kids you talk about.

Marriages are contracts between two persons- their imaginary children are not involved.

 

[Silhouette]

Well marriages are contracts. I guess we can leave it up to the attorney for the orphans of Michigan briefing Dumont to argue the points in briefing to the court, as required.

I guess that will be the imaginary attorney, like the imaginary kids you talk about.

Marriages are contracts between two persons- their imaginary children are not involved.

That's not what Obergefell said in its third tier of rationale.

 

[Syriusly]

Well marriages are contracts. I guess we can leave it up to the attorney for the orphans of Michigan briefing Dumont to argue the points in briefing to the court, as required.

I guess that will be the imaginary attorney, like the imaginary kids you talk about.

Marriages are contracts between two persons- their imaginary children are not involved.

That's not what Obergefell said in its third tier of rationale.

No- because Obergefell didn't address your imaginary children.

Of course Obergefell never says that children are part of the marriage contract.

What Obergefell does say is that denying a couple marriage can harm their children.

Why do you want to harm those children?

 

[Silhouette]

Read Obergefell's third tier of rationale and get back to me.

 

[Silhouette]

Of course Obergefell never says that children are part of the marriage contract.

vv Obergefell's third tier of rationale vv

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.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27

So the court said on page 15 of Obergefell Opinion: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution that the marriage contract benefits are shared between adults and children "parents" and children to be exact. Imparting benefits "important to children's best interests."

So, we have a contract that's shared between adults and kids (check that affirmative box on the Infancy Doctrine), that confers benefits to children (check that affirmative box on the Infancy Doctrine), and Obergefell was a hearing about removing one of those millennial-old contractual benefits for life (in the case of Dumont, a father for sons or daughters) using a revision of said contract. Yet, children did not have any counsel briefing the Court on that key benefit being removed.

Instead, 5 layman Justices removed that benefit for them, without any briefing whatsoever on its impact to sons and daughters as partners to the marriage contract.

Now in Dumont we have a set of lesbians holding that contract with the same implicit anticipation of sharing with children, trying to force the State of Michigan to disgorge boys (or girls) into their new contract type which banishes a father from boys (or girls) for life. Also without any briefing to the court of the required separate representation the Infancy Doctrine requires in such a civil case. We have the check list 1. YES, marriage is a contract. 2. YES, children share it with adults (see Obergefell quote). 3. Therefore any monumental or impactful changes to said contract re: "important to children's best interests" must have children's input in court.

I'll leave you with this, and plenty of time to spam this post to another page; whereupon I will promptly repost it:

Britain's Youth Index 2011 (the largest youth survey of its kind) showing the importance of mothers to daughters and fathers to sons. Lack of which is detrimental to them: Youth_Index_2010_Jan2011.pdf

Fatherhood's important to boys (and girls), A US Dept of Health & Human Services Report 2006
fatherhood.pdf

 

[mdk]

 

[Silhouette]

^^ mdk's sentiments about children having a voice in court upon whether or not a father can be contractually removed from them for life.

You're all heart, cult of LGBT.

 

[mdk]

^^ mdk's sentiments about children having a voice in court upon whether or not a father can be contractually removed from them for life.

You're all heart, cult of LGBT.

You keep laboring under the delusion that everyone is bound by your wild and moronic interpretations of the law. I can assure you we are not.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course Obergefell never says that children are part of the marriage contract.

vv Obergefell's third tier of rationale vv

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.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27

So the court said on page 15 of Obergefell Opinion: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution that the marriage contract benefits are shared between adults and children "parents" and children to be exact. Imparting benefits "important to children's best interests."=f

No- again you are just lying. The court never said that marriage benefits are 'shared'- the court recognized that marriage can benefit children- and depriving children of married parents harms them.

So once again- why do you keep urging governments to harm children?

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.” Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22–27

 

[Syriusly]

^^ mdk's sentiments about children having a voice in court upon whether or not a father can be contractually removed from them for life.

You're all heart, cult of LGBT.

Silhouette once again unable to find the post reply button.

Of course perhaps the post reply button just gets embarressed and hides from her BS claims.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Fatherhood's important to boys (and girls), A US Dept of Health & Human Services Report 2006
fatherhood.pdf

Ah yes- that document which is primarily on how to prevent fathers from abusing their own children.

 

[Silhouette]

Not lying Syriusly. The quote from Obergefell was taken verbatim from the Opinion on the exact page cited with the link

Ah yes- that document which is primarily on how to prevent fathers from abusing their own children.

One of said ways is to not be present in their life. In Dumont's case, via contractual ban.

Are you actually saying that fathers are bad for children? Case law citation or peer-reviewed studies please with links.

 

[Syriusly]

Not lying Syriusly. The quote from Obergefell was taken verbatim from the Opinion on the exact page cited with the link

You occasionally provide direct quotes- and then you lie about what the quote says.

Lets review this specific example:

Here is what you said:
So the court said on page 15 of Obergefell Opinion: Obergefell v. Hodges | Obergefell V. Hodges | Fourteenth Amendment To The United States Constitution that the marriage contract benefits are shared between adults and children "parents" and children to be exact. Imparting benefits "important to children's best interests."

So, we have a contract that's shared between adults and kids

Except of course- you lied- the court never said that 'the marriage contract benefits are share between adults and children". That is entirely your lie- once again what the court actually said:

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See Piercev. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510 (1925) ; Meyer, 262 U. S., at 399. The Court has recognized these connections by describing the varied rights as a unified whole: "[T]he right to 'marry, establish a home and bring up children' is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause." Zablocki, 434 U. S., at 384 (quoting Meyer, supra, at 399). 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." Windsor, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 23). Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children's best interests. See Brief for Scholars of the Constitutional Rights of Children as Amici Curiae 22 27

Nowhere in Obergefell does the court ever declare that children are part of the marriage contract.

Instead- as you know- and always avoid- the court recognized that denying marriage harms children:

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).

Since you cite Obergefell- and Obergefell says very clearly that the marriage laws you promote harm children- why do you want these children?

 

[Syriusly]

Not lying Syriusly. The quote from Obergefell was taken verbatim from the Opinion on the exact page cited with the link

Ah yes- that document which is primarily on how to prevent fathers from abusing their own children.

Are you actually saying that fathers are bad for children? Case law citation or peer-reviewed studies please with links.

Are you actually saying that you enjoy kicking puppies?

The document you linked to is primarily concerned with helping fathers who abuse their children from abusing their children.

I am all for fathers and I am all for mothers- most importantly I am all for children having at least one- and hopefully two parents in their lives.

Why don't you want these children to have parents in their lives?