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

[Dragonlady]

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.

Adoption isn’t a contract. The Infancy Doctrine applies to monetary contracts for goods and services. To protect children from “crafty adults”.

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/.../&httpsredir=1&article=1002&context=lawreview

I say this as an both an adoptee and a law clerk. You don’t have the foggiest notion of what you’re talking about. Not one. You’re completely deranged on this subject.

Go after the pedophiles, the creepy stepdads. The funny uncles. God knows there’s enough of them.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Nope- that is just your continuous lie.

Glad to post your actual citation again:

Note above- the doctrine allows minors to void a contract that they entered as a minor.

That is it.

But minors may still have to pay for 'necessaries' incurred under the contract.

Including that the minor may have to pay for an attorney under some circumstances under the contract

Here are some examples:

Not a single person in the United States- other than you- believes your whacked out story of what ID means.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Adoption isn’t a contract. The Infancy Doctrine applies to monetary contracts for goods and services. To protect children from “crafty adults”.

https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/.../&httpsredir=1&article=1002&context=lawreview

I say this as an both an adoptee and a law clerk. You don’t have the foggiest notion of what you’re talking about. Not one. You’re completely deranged on this subject.

Go after the pedophiles, the creepy stepdads. The funny uncles. God knows there’s enough of them.

You nailed it.

This is the thing about the homophobes- they claim it is always for the 'kids' but as the court has noted- preventing the parents of gay kids from marrying hurts them. Preventing kids abandoned by their own parents from being adopted by two parents- straight or gay- who are volunteering to be their forever parents- who want to be those parents- because of some twisted ideas about gays- just hurts kids.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Your entire premise is based on your belief that the Infancy Doctrine is applicable to adoptions and it’s simply not true.

There is no contract in adoption. There are no obligations imposed on a child in an adoption. The Infancy Doctrine exists to provide financial relief to children who get bamboozled.

Single adoption doesn’t give two parents either. But you’re only attacking gay adoption. I’m sure my younger sister would have been much happier living with a gay couple than with our mother and the drunken pervert she married. Then my sister wouldn’t have been raped when she was 12.

Why don’t you go after those guys?

 

[Silhouette]

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.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Your entire premise is based on your belief that the Infancy Doctrine is applicable to adoptions and it’s simply not true.

There is no contract in adoption. There are no obligations imposed on a child in an adoption. The Infancy Doctrine exists to provide financial relief to children who get bamboozled.

Single adoption doesn’t give two parents either. But you’re only attacking gay adoption. I’m sure my younger sister would have been much happier living with a gay couple than with our mother and the drunken pervert she married. Then my sister wouldn’t have been raped when she was 12.

Why don’t you go after those guys?

My sympathies for you and your sister.

Of course you actually understand the Infancy Doctrine and the law- something that Silhouette willfully doesn't in her campaign to harm children and gays.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Thank you for your first person account.

 

[badger2]

So the jury's still out on the paternal function? Lesbian females are threatening theologians? We think that they are at least looking in the right direction, for their shirking of responsibility is so much akin to Hillary Clinton's free jail pass. The copulation of church and state is the pathology, and cannot be separated from the underside of the law within law, that #180 cannot do an ostrich imitation about. The non-law within law, is the concept (see Badiou and Politics).

Next, one must confront the freudian take on homosexuality as it relates to religion, because the U.S,. Constitution's deliberately deceptive use of prepositions.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

Fine, make that argument to a proper court. And by proper, I mean a court where the required counsel is there briefing the court on behalf of all the orphans of Michigan, each of which has the potential to wind up in the lesbian's married-contract home. Or is it your contention that fathers being contractually-banned for life from children is a "legal done deal". If so, I assume you'd be prepared to cite case law where that is so.

And BTW, if you are citing case law where that is so, be sure to note whether or not counsel for children potentially affected by those precedents (all children within the US if these are from the USSC), were present briefing THOSE hearings as well. You don't bind children away from what society considers vital to them (particularly boys from fathers) using a contract children share with adults (see Obergefell, third tier of rationale) without children affected having counsel present briefing the court.

Unless for some reason you, the paragon of compassion for every thing that's best for children, suddenly don't want them to have a voice in proceedings which massively impact them more than any other demographic? In other words if you're so cock-sure about your argument, allow the voices of children to echo it, or not. You'll win anyway, right?

 

[Silhouette]

So Dragonlady, where's that case law that has found fathers, especially in a contract for life, psychologically irrelevant to boys? And, did boys have any counsel briefing the court on that.

Maybe a divorce proceeding somewhere, where the court found a boy could be banned from paternal visitation for no reason other than a convenience to the mother? Please name the guardian ad Litem in that case.

 

[Silhouette]

For instance, was this government publication consulted or briefed in any of that case law? Will it be consulted or briefed in Dumont v Lyon by an attorney for the orphans of Michigan. It's one thing to place a boy in a single woman's home, where the chance of that child knowing a father is decent. It's quite another to place him in a home where the home holds a contract that promises to NEVER let the boy know a father. This is the crux of the argument in Dumont. And this is why particularly the orphaned boys of Michigan must have representation at the hearing.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/fatherhood.pdf

 

[EvilCat Breath]

So Dragonlady, where's that case law that has found fathers, especially in a contract for life, psychologically irrelevant to boys? And, did boys have any counsel briefing the court on that.

Maybe a divorce proceeding somewhere, where the court found a boy could be banned from paternal visitation for no reason other than a convenience to the mother? Please name the guardian ad Litem in that case.

Children in a divorce do not have a guardian ad litem


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.

 

[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

So, legal community, educate yourselves before yet another mistrial happens where children's vested interest in contractual-shares with adults are not allowed to be briefed as required by law.

 

[Syriusly]

So the jury's still out on the paternal function? Lesbian females are threatening theologians? We think that they are at least looking in the right direction, for their shirking of responsibility is so much akin to Hillary Clinton's free jail pass. The copulation of church and state is the pathology, and cannot be separated from the underside of the law within law, that #180 cannot do an ostrich imitation about. The non-law within law, is the concept (see Badiou and Politics)..

LOL.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Fine, make that argument to a proper court. And by proper, I mean a court where the required counsel is there briefing the court on behalf of all the orphans of Michigan

Just because you stomp your feet and threaten to pout?

Remember- not a single person in the world agrees with your daffy 'definition' of the Infancy Doctrine- or that it applies to children being adopted.

 

[Syriusly]

So Dragonlady, where's that case law that has found fathers, especially in a contract for life, psychologically irrelevant to boys? .

There is no case law either way.

But the states have decided that children do not necessarily need a mother or father in their lives. How do we know this? From the evidence:
a) Most states allow single parents to adopt children- single mom's and single dad's- because states want children who have been abandoned by their biological parents to have at least one parent who wants to be a parent forever to the child.
b) All states allow parents to divorce without any regard to the wishes or needs of the children. States are completely fine with a mom and dad divorcing and Dad moving off to Alaska as long as he sends the child support checks each month.

Of course you are fine with either of those- you are just against a child having two mom's or two dad's- instead of just one.

Because this is always part of your effort to harm kids and gays.

 

[Syriusly]

For instance, was this government publication consulted or briefed in any of that case law? Will it be consulted or briefed in Dumont v Lyon by an attorney for the orphans of Michigan. It's one thing to place a boy in a single woman's home, where the chance of that child knowing a father is decent. It's quite another to place him in a home where the home holds a contract that promises to NEVER let the boy know a father. This is the crux of the argument in Dumont. And this is why particularly the orphaned boys of Michigan must have representation at the hearing.

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/fatherhood.pdf

That is a document primarily about how to prevent father's from abusing their children.

 

[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.

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;.

There is absolutely no such requirement- you just lie about the Infancy Doctrine.

The infancy doctrine protects children from being held to contracts made for them.

And if the contract includes representation of the child in a law suit- the child is responsible for paying for the lawyer.

You just lie.