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

[Syriusly]

I can't help but notice Syriusly, that you seem adamantly opposed to Michigan's orphans having counsel brief the court about their interests in Dumont. From all you have asserted that gay combinations make perfect parents, you seem almost fearful at the prospect of the required counsel being there for Michigan's orphans.

?

I can't help but notice Silhouette that you really don't like to use the reply button to reply to me- almost as if you want to pretend you are replying to me- but with less chance I will notice it.

I am adamantly against your anti-gay campaign that is intended to hurt gay couples and their children. I am adamantly against your lies regarding the Infancy Doctrine.

Not one court- ever- has recognized your interpretation of the Infancy Doctrine.

Its almost like you have made it up all by yourself.....

 

[Syriusly]

And Syriusly, where are the names of the children these two lesbians are trying to adopt? Or are they just seeking the general pool of orphans

They are suing because the law allows certain adoption agencies to refuse to allow them to adopt any children because they are a gay couple. They are suing for the right to be part of the pool of potential adoptive parents for the children whose own heterosexual parents have abandoned them.

 

[Silhouette]

And Syriusly, where are the names of the children these two lesbians are trying to adopt? Or are they just seeking the general pool of orphans

They are suing because the law allows certain adoption agencies to refuse to allow them to adopt any children because they are a gay couple. They are suing for the right to be part of the pool of potential adoptive parents for the children whose own heterosexual parents have abandoned them.

Well it would be one thing if they were suing for the rights to purchase a car. But these are living separate beings who have legal rights in civil trials in cases where the precedent/outcome affects them for life. Such as when two lesbians, on purpose or inadvertently, use a contract to banish them for life from a father. That needs the orphans' input.

Again, they are living beings, living people. In fact they are some of the most important people in our country, deserving the highest of considerations and protections. And particularly we have to assume some of them will be boys. There are thousands of studies, peer-reviewed on the negative effect of boys never having known a father. In this case it would be the promise of them never knowing a father when the two lesbians filled out an application for adoption. No hope ever of a boy knowing a father. Boy orphans in particular have an interest in this case.

Unless you're arguing they are inanimate objects as pawns in the latest "gay vs whatever" lawsuits? Children aren't pawns. And when sharing a contract and a roof with adults who have that contract, they have rights as to its terms. Paramount of those rights is the ability to brief any court on the redacting or modification of those terms which clearly seek to take away something they used to enjoy being adopted out to married people. Singles don't possess such a contract.

 

[Silhouette]

Not one court- ever- has recognized your interpretation of the Infancy Doctrine.

Its almost like you have made it up all by yourself.....

Almost, but not quite. The link to the Santa Clara Law Review is here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf Page 53 of the document. Page 8 of PDF. Read the footnotes to the paragraph at the bottom of the page.

 

[Silhouette]

I am adamantly against your anti-gay campaign that is intended to hurt gay couples and their children. I am adamantly against your lies regarding the Infancy Doctrine.

Well here's the thing. I'm adamantly against your anti-father campaign for boys in lesbian "marriages". I'm adamantly against excluding children from courts. I'm adamantly against having children impacted hugely by your cult's judicial-activism crusade by having either a mother or father removed for life using a contract. I'm adamantly opposed to your cult being upset that I'd even suggest children, orphans, boys and girls have counsel briefing courts on these landmark cases that are doing things humans have never done since the dawn of history, in a predictably bad social experiment seeking to nullify the importance of mothers and fathers officially...using backdoors and misplaced sympathies of tired and overworked judges.

These tired and overworked judges may have missed the part of law in the Infancy Doctrine that requires children in these types of cases have their own unique counsel briefing the civil courts/family law matters, but that doesn't mean those case law requirements don't exist.

You can be adamantly against what I'm advocating; but this is America and equal rights apply. So I'm just as tired of what your cult is doing to children and families and the very meaning of words and important things like "mother" and "father". Your grand social experiment does not have the right to bind children from court and then dabble with depriving them of a father for life by a contract "just cuz you say so", or because one of you was bullied in school. The judges not following due process requiring said counsel for children should all be lined up slapped.

 

[Syriusly]

I am adamantly against your anti-gay campaign that is intended to hurt gay couples and their children. I am adamantly against your lies regarding the Infancy Doctrine.

Well here's the thing. I'm adamantly against your anti-father campaign for boys in lesbian "marriages"..

I am fine with the sons in lesbian marriages having fathers.

If the biological father who abandoned his son to an adoption agency wants to be part of his child's life, and it works with the adoptive parents and the son that he abandoned- I have no problem with that at all.

There is absolutely no legal reason why a father cannot be present in a child's life- just because his married parents are lesbians.

Of course you don't want these children to be adopted by any gay parents- under any circumstances- because you prefer the children to be injured by their abandonment rather than to be adopted by loving parents who want them.

 

[bodecea]

LOL Silhouette is spamming her own thread!

It is funny, I will admit.

 

[Syriusly]

Not one court- ever- has recognized your interpretation of the Infancy Doctrine.

Its almost like you have made it up all by yourself.....

Almost, but not quite. The link to the Santa Clara Law Review is here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf Page 53 of the document. Page 8 of PDF. Read the footnotes to the paragraph at the bottom of the page.

Ah so glad you trotted out this document again- another prime example of a real document that says the opposite of what you claim.

Lets review the main points of Infancy Doctrine:

So a contract made on behalf of a real minor, can be voidable by that minor- that is the essence of the Infancy Doctrine- which of course is not what you claim the Infancy Doctrine is at all.

Here is the rule more specifically

Once again- the Infancy Doctrine(ID) allows a minor to void a contract. That is basically it.

But the minor is liable for 'necessaries'

Remember- what this means is that a minor is on the hook for necessaries - within the contract- if they are not supplied by their parents. Meaning the minor would be liable to pay for such necessaries.

Which takes us to your most off misquoted and mischaracterized part of ID:

So under extraordinary circumstances- counsel in a civil suit might be considered a 'necessity'- in which case that minor would be responsible for paying the costs of the lawyer.

And then the author provides some examples of the use of ID

Note how none of them have to do with imaginary children or even real children requiring counsel(imaginary or otherwise) to represent them in a marriage contract or an adoption contract.

I will keep all of this handy for the next time you make your regular false claims about the Infancy Doctrine.

 

[Syriusly]

And Syriusly, where are the names of the children these two lesbians are trying to adopt? Or are they just seeking the general pool of orphans

They are suing because the law allows certain adoption agencies to refuse to allow them to adopt any children because they are a gay couple. They are suing for the right to be part of the pool of potential adoptive parents for the children whose own heterosexual parents have abandoned them.

Well it would be one thing if they were suing for the rights to purchase a car. But these are living separate beings who have legal rights in civil trials in cases where the precedent/outcome affects them for life..

Those living human beings aren't even part of the adoption contract.

No attorney represents these children when they are adopted.

Should every child awaiting adoption be represented by counsel to ensure that their legal rights are protected? Perhaps.

But these children have no mother or father- their mothers and fathers abandoned them.

States have no requirement that the adopting family has both a mother and a father- single parents are often adoptive parents and that is no legal issue. No one is arguing that the child without ANY parents is harmed because he is adopted by a single mom and no father.

But some want to deny those children adoption when there are two mom's and no father.

People like you.

 

[Silhouette]

Not one court- ever- has recognized your interpretation of the Infancy Doctrine.

Its almost like you have made it up all by yourself.....

Almost, but not quite. The link to the Santa Clara Law Review is here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf Page 53 of the document. Page 8 of PDF. Read the footnotes to the paragraph at the bottom of the page.

Ah so glad you trotted out this document again- another prime example of a real document that says the opposite of what you claim.

Lets review the main points of Infancy Doctrine:
View attachment 179894

So a contract made on behalf of a real minor, can be voidable by that minor- that is the essence of the Infancy Doctrine- which of course is not what you claim the Infancy Doctrine is at all.

Here is the rule more specifically
View attachment 179895
Once again- the Infancy Doctrine(ID) allows a minor to void a contract. That is basically it.

But the minor is liable for 'necessaries'

View attachment 179896


Remember- what this means is that a minor is on the hook for necessaries - within the contract- if they are not supplied by their parents. Meaning the minor would be liable to pay for such necessaries.

Which takes us to your most off misquoted and mischaracterized part of ID:
View attachment 179897

So under extraordinary circumstances- counsel in a civil suit might be considered a 'necessity'- in which case that minor would be responsible for paying the costs of the lawyer.

And then the author provides some examples of the use of ID

View attachment 179899

Note how none of them have to do with imaginary children or even real children requiring counsel(imaginary or otherwise) to represent them in a marriage contract or an adoption contract.

I will keep all of this handy for the next time you make your regular false claims about the Infancy Doctrine.

You left out page 53, last paragraph. Why is that?

 

[Syriusly]

Not one court- ever- has recognized your interpretation of the Infancy Doctrine.

Its almost like you have made it up all by yourself.....

Almost, but not quite. The link to the Santa Clara Law Review is here: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf Page 53 of the document. Page 8 of PDF. Read the footnotes to the paragraph at the bottom of the page.

Ah so glad you trotted out this document again- another prime example of a real document that says the opposite of what you claim.

Lets review the main points of Infancy Doctrine:
View attachment 179894

So a contract made on behalf of a real minor, can be voidable by that minor- that is the essence of the Infancy Doctrine- which of course is not what you claim the Infancy Doctrine is at all.

Here is the rule more specifically
View attachment 179895
Once again- the Infancy Doctrine(ID) allows a minor to void a contract. That is basically it.

But the minor is liable for 'necessaries'

View attachment 179896


Remember- what this means is that a minor is on the hook for necessaries - within the contract- if they are not supplied by their parents. Meaning the minor would be liable to pay for such necessaries.

Which takes us to your most off misquoted and mischaracterized part of ID:
View attachment 179897

So under extraordinary circumstances- counsel in a civil suit might be considered a 'necessity'- in which case that minor would be responsible for paying the costs of the lawyer.

And then the author provides some examples of the use of ID

View attachment 179899

Note how none of them have to do with imaginary children or even real children requiring counsel(imaginary or otherwise) to represent them in a marriage contract or an adoption contract.

I will keep all of this handy for the next time you make your regular false claims about the Infancy Doctrine.

You left out page 53, last paragraph. Why is that?

You clearly don't even read your own references.

You ignore the actual definition of the Infancy Doctrine- why is that?

 

[Silhouette]

You clearly don't even read your own references.

You ignore the actual definition of the Infancy Doctrine- why is that?

So we're on the same page then. The orphans of Michigan would clearly have a vested interest in the monumental decision to place any of them in a home that has a contract banishing them (girls or boys) from a father for life. That would be a necessity in a contractual situation where children would share the terms of the contract with adults. So, counsel appointed ASAP for the orphans of Michigan to brief the court on this weighty civil/ family law issue.

 

[Syriusly]

You clearly don't even read your own references.

You ignore the actual definition of the Infancy Doctrine- why is that?

So we're on the same page then. .

so we're on the same page then- you admit you are lying about what the Infancy Doctrine says and are just doing all of this to harm gays and children.

 

[Syriusly]

You clearly don't even read your own references.

You ignore the actual definition of the Infancy Doctrine- why is that?

So, counsel appointed ASAP for the orphans of Michigan to brief the court on this weighty civil/ family law issue.

LOL- if you actually knew what the Infancy Doctrine said- what you are actually proposing is that the orphans in Michigan would be required to pay for lawyers to represent them in this case.

I mean if you had any clue as to what you were talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

You clearly don't even read your own references.

You ignore the actual definition of the Infancy Doctrine- why is that?

So, counsel appointed ASAP for the orphans of Michigan to brief the court on this weighty civil/ family law issue.

LOL- if you actually knew what the Infancy Doctrine said- what you are actually proposing is that the orphans in Michigan would be required to pay for lawyers to represent them in this case.

I mean if you had any clue as to what you were talking about.

So now you are "concerned" that orphans might have to pay for the counsel on their behalf?

Yes that's the big worry. Not being shut out of court briefing that determines permanent precedent for all of them potentially being contractually banished for life from a father. Boys included, remember.

Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

 

[Silhouette]

so we're on the same page then- you admit you are lying about what the Infancy Doctrine says and are just doing all of this to harm gays and children.

I haven't interfered with your psychological projecting as yet because you are doing far more damage to people doing gay and lesbian stuff than I ever could. By repeatedly taking such a strong stance against children having representation in Dumont v Lyon, you are a mascot for what people have long suspected of the LGBT cult: using children as pawns for...whatever.

If you truly believed in the well being of children, and that these two lesbians banishing them for life from a father using their marriage contract "is great, the best thing for these otherwise unwanted orphans", you would be advocating like crazy for them to have counsel briefing the court. But we know that competent counsel could never brief the court with a straight face that a boy being deprived of a father for life using a contract's terms is "good for the boy" (or girl for that matter).

And so you're here, making up reasons that seem compassionate for children not having counsel at court as required. The latest of course is that they should forego representation because "it's too expensive for the orphans of the State of Michigan to hire counsel".

Keep up the good work Syriusly. I hardly have to do anything. Your ruse is so friggin' transparent.

 

[Syriusly]

You clearly don't even read your own references.

You ignore the actual definition of the Infancy Doctrine- why is that?

So, counsel appointed ASAP for the orphans of Michigan to brief the court on this weighty civil/ family law issue.

LOL- if you actually knew what the Infancy Doctrine said- what you are actually proposing is that the orphans in Michigan would be required to pay for lawyers to represent them in this case.

I mean if you had any clue as to what you were talking about.

So now you are "concerned" that orphans might have to pay for the counsel on their behalf?
..

Actually I am not 'concerned'- because Infancy Doctrine doesn't apply at all to these orphans and their adoption.

I am just amused by the fact that even if it worked how you thought it did- Little Orphan Annie would be stuck with the bill for her lawyer.

And you would be okay with that.

 

[Syriusly]

so we're on the same page then- you admit you are lying about what the Infancy Doctrine says and are just doing all of this to harm gays and children.

If you truly believed in the well being of children, and that these two lesbians banishing them for life from a father using their marriage contract "is great.

I truly believe in the well being of children- so I advocate that these kids have more adoptive parents- either single or couples- to adopt them.

If you were truly for the well being of these children you would be also.

But all you are concerned about is harming children and gays.

 

[Dragonlady]

Another excerpt from Dumont v Lyons:

-5-
13.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and seek declaratory and injunctive relief directing officials of DHHS and its sub-agency, the Children’s Services Agency (“CSA”), to ensure that private child placing agencies that are contracted by the State and funded with tax dollars to provide adoption and foster care services to children, do not turn away same-sex couples or other potentially qualified families based on religious eligibility criteria.

Agreed. If they receive money from the state to act as a public-adoption agency, they will lose this case. So instead, let their argument be secular and about banning children from either a mother or father for life using a contract: NOBODY (including a judge) is legally-allowed (Infancy Doctrine, see link in OP to "gay marriage vs children...) to use or participate in enforcing or enhancing a contract that strips a child for life of a necessity vital to their best well being.

The “Infancy Doctrine” is to prevent commercial entities from abusing the youth and experience of children in business contracts. It is not applicable to adoptions.

Your obsession of opposing gay adoption is sick and twisted. Lots of us grew up with one parent. Should I sue the agency that allowed him to adopt me only to die a year later?

No one is guaranteed two opposite sex parents. As for the emotional and mental health of the children, have you looked at the abuse statistics by stepfathers? Every week there’s another story in the papers about some boyfriend/stepfather who has sexually abused a child or murdered an infant.

Why aren’t you going after the father’s and stepfathers who are abusing children. There’s far more of these incidents than there is evidence that being raised by gay parents is a danger to the child.

 

[Silhouette]

The “Infancy Doctrine” is to prevent commercial entities from abusing the youth and experience of children in business contracts. It is not applicable to adoptions.

The Infancy Doctrine covers ALL contracts that children share with adults. Sorry. Try again.