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

[Silhouette]

The plaintiff's didn't oppose intervention by St. Vincent Catholic Charities, the(y) opposed intervention by volunteers who might not be able to volunteer if St. Vincent doesn't receive taxpayer funding.

Glad to see the defense wasting time on non-entities having a stake in the game. Maybe if they realized that boys in their care shouldn't be contractually banned for life from a father, their case would take on more teeth. Hopefully the stupid will be cured soon in their legal defense team. Putting all their eggs in the religion basket while a whole other party with a much more compelling (supportive to defense) argument remains muted, is a bit daft IMHO.

Who are the attorneys for the defense?

Who are you talking to Silhouette? Yourself?

Remember you are the only one advocating policies that the courts have specifically stated harm children.

I was talking to WorldWatcher.

 

[Syriusly]

The plaintiff's didn't oppose intervention by St. Vincent Catholic Charities, the(y) opposed intervention by volunteers who might not be able to volunteer if St. Vincent doesn't receive taxpayer funding.

Glad to see the defense wasting time on non-entities having a stake in the game. Maybe if they realized that boys in their care shouldn't be contractually banned for life from a father, their case would take on more teeth. .

Of course there is no contract- ever- that bans a father from a child's life.

These are children whose fathers have abandoned them. You object to them being adopted by two women- but oddly enough- not by a single woman.

In either case of course- neither prevents a father being in the child's life.

 

[Syriusly]

The plaintiff's didn't oppose intervention by St. Vincent Catholic Charities, the(y) opposed intervention by volunteers who might not be able to volunteer if St. Vincent doesn't receive taxpayer funding.

Glad to see the defense wasting time on non-entities having a stake in the game. Maybe if they realized that boys in their care shouldn't be contractually banned for life from a father, their case would take on more teeth. Hopefully the stupid will be cured soon in their legal defense team. Putting all their eggs in the religion basket while a whole other party with a much more compelling (supportive to defense) argument remains muted, is a bit daft IMHO.

Who are the attorneys for the defense?

Who are you talking to Silhouette? Yourself?

Remember you are the only one advocating policies that the courts have specifically stated harm children.

I was talking to WorldWatcher.

Hopefully this visual reminder will help you do that better in the future

 

[Silhouette]

Of course there is no contract- ever- that bans a father from a child's life.

.

Other than a marriage contract between two lesbians.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course there is no contract- ever- that bans a father from a child's life.

.

Other than a marriage contract between two lesbians.

How does that prevent a man from being the father to his children? Any more than a man who divorces his wife and moves 2 hours away?

 

[Silhouette]

Of course there is no contract- ever- that bans a father from a child's life.

.

Other than a marriage contract between two lesbians.

How does that prevent a man from being the father to his children? Any more than a man who divorces his wife and moves 2 hours away?

One is a contract, the other isn't. And, great debate to have at court in Dumont, with Michigan's orphans having counsel briefing, as required where contractual terms and benefits are shared between adults and (prospective) children.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course there is no contract- ever- that bans a father from a child's life.

.

Other than a marriage contract between two lesbians.

How does that prevent a man from being the father to his children? Any more than a man who divorces his wife and moves 2 hours away?

One is a contract, the other isn't. .

How does either prevent a man from being a father to his kids?

 

[Silhouette]

How does either prevent a man from being a father to his kids?

Are the lesbians in Dumont polygamists? Or are they two "married" women in a home seeking to adopt a child where no man will ever be present, by promise of their contract...?

 

[Syriusly]

How does either prevent a man from being a father to his kids?

Are the lesbians in Dumont polygamists?

You would have to ask them.

How does either prevent a man from being a father to his kids?

 

[Silhouette]

How does either prevent a man from being a father to his kids?

Are the lesbians in Dumont polygamists?

You would have to ask them.

How does either prevent a man from being a father to his kids?

I'm pretty sure if the Dumont lesbians are polygamists they would not get the adoption they're after.

 

[Syriusly]

How does either prevent a man from being a father to his kids?

Are the lesbians in Dumont polygamists?

You would have to ask them.

How does either prevent a man from being a father to his kids?

I'm pretty sure if the Dumont lesbians are polygamists they would not get the adoption they're after.

Fascinating.

And again how does this prevent a man from being a father to his kids?

Remember of course that in the case of adoption, the father has given up all legal rights to his children.

But that doesn't mean that the adoptive parents are prevented from allowing the biological father a role in the children's lives- I have seen that happen myself.

So why do you keep lying about gay adoptions- is it purely to harm their children? Or is it all part of your scheme to harm gay Americans?

 

[Silhouette]

Your strawman is now dead. We're talking about two lesbians who hold a contract which does not include a father in the home, for life. Period. Unless their pleadings include "we can adopt because we'll find a regular father for our children", your argument is just a strawman.

 

[Silhouette]

New counsel joined the suit on behalf of defendants last Friday, March 9.

 

[Syriusly]

Your strawman is now dead. We're talking about two lesbians who hold a contract which does not include a father in the home, for life. Period.

And? Again- nothing prevents a father from being in the lives of any of the imaginary children that two lesbians may or may not have- nor does it mean that the biological father who has abandoned his own child cannot be part of his child's life.

Again- there is no contract which ever prevents a child from having a father.

 

[Syriusly]

New counsel joined the suit on behalf of defendants last Friday, March 9.

No mention of that anywhere on the web or the news.

 

[Silhouette]

New counsel joined the suit on behalf of defendants last Friday, March 9.

No mention of that anywhere on the web or the news.

Once again your credibility is in the toilet. This WEBsite link: Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (2:17-cv-13080), Michigan Eastern District Court

 

[Syriusly]

New counsel joined the suit on behalf of defendants last Friday, March 9.

No mention of that anywhere on the web or the news.

Once again your credibility is in the toilet. This WEBsite link: Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (2:17-cv-13080), Michigan Eastern District Court

Hey you might have gotten one thing correct!

Thanks for the link.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hey you might have gotten one thing correct!

Thanks for the link.

Do bad she didn't.

The attorney is not one for the defendant. The Dependent's are (copied from the complaint): "NICK LYON, in his official capacity as the Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Service; and HERMAN MCCALL, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Michigan Children’s Services Agency"

Chad Buck, Melissa Buck, Shamber Flore, St. Vincent Catholic Charities are not defendants, they are asking for intervenor status. Not the same thing.



>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Hey you might have gotten one thing correct!

Thanks for the link.

Do bad she didn't.

The attorney is not one for the defendant. The Dependent's are (copied from the complaint): "NICK LYON, in his official capacity as the Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Service; and HERMAN MCCALL, in his official capacity as the Executive Director of the Michigan Children’s Services Agency"

Chad Buck, Melissa Buck, Shamber Flore, St. Vincent Catholic Charities are not defendants, they are asking for intervenor status. Not the same thing.



>>>>

Care to elaborate- unlike Silly, I don't pretend to be an expert on the law.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Care to elaborate- unlike Silly, I don't pretend to be an expert on the law.

Basically the State of Michigan is the defendant in the suit. The named individuals are acting in their official capacity.

An intervenor is a 3rd party asking the court to participate either in support of the plaintiff or the defendant.

The ACLU is challenging a State law which allows state contractors to discriminate based on religion. The ACLU is a the plaintiff and the State is the Defendant.


Intervenor


>>>>