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

[Silhouette]

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.

Thanks for that clarification. Do you know what or who they are intervening on behalf of? What's their beef in the suit in other words?

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, OK, The two Bucks and Flore are children who were adopted out by Catholic Charities before. They are pitching to see to it that orphans aren't harmed by the outcome of this suit. Good. OK.

 

[Silhouette]

Ah, here we go...

ACLU & Michigan Adoption: Lawsuit Targets Faith-Based Agencies | National Review

Three parties have sought permission to intervene in the lawsuit to protect their interests: St. Vincent Catholic Charities, an adoption agency that has provided a range of services to families and children in Michigan since 1948; Melissa and Chad Buck, who adopted, through St. Vincent’s, a sibling group of children with special needs and, later, the children’s infant sister, and who continue to receive services and support from the agency; and Shamber Flore, a young woman who was adopted from foster care through St. Vincent’s .....All three parties argue that they have substantial legal interests in the lawsuit and that the court should allow them to join the lawsuit so they can protect those interests. While the ACLU acknowledged the right of St. Vincent’s Catholic Charities to intervene (and the court allowed the agency to do so), it argued that the Bucks and Ms. Flore have no right to be heard.

So real actual people doing the orphan adoption thing, and an orphan herself "have no right to be heard" in a case that seeks to set a monumental precedent concerning people adopting orphans and the orphans themselves in Michigan. That's a direct attempt to blockade at least one party to discuss the marriage contract which has banished any potential orphans involved from a father for life. You can't banish children from representation about a contract they share with adults that is up for radical revision as to qualifying for adoption. I've never heard of an adoption agency agreeing to adopt a child to a situation where adults possess a contract that banishes them for life from either a mother or father. And if I did hear of it, you'd better believe children "have a right to be heard" (brief the court) on such a matter.

 

[Syriusly]

Ah, here we go...

ACLU & Michigan Adoption: Lawsuit Targets Faith-Based Agencies | National Review

Three parties have sought permission to intervene in the lawsuit to protect their interests: St. Vincent Catholic Charities, an adoption agency that has provided a range of services to families and children in Michigan since 1948; Melissa and Chad Buck, who adopted, through St. Vincent’s, a sibling group of children with special needs and, later, the children’s infant sister, and who continue to receive services and support from the agency; and Shamber Flore, a young woman who was adopted from foster care through St. Vincent’s .....All three parties argue that they have substantial legal interests in the lawsuit and that the court should allow them to join the lawsuit so they can protect those interests. While the ACLU acknowledged the right of St. Vincent’s Catholic Charities to intervene (and the court allowed the agency to do so), it argued that the Bucks and Ms. Flore have no right to be heard.

So real actual people doing the orphan adoption thing, and an orphan herself "have no right to be heard" in a case that seeks to set a monumental precedent concerning people adopting orphans and the orphans themselves in Michigan. That's a direct attempt to blockade at least one party to discuss the marriage contract which has banished any potential orphans involved from a father for life. You can't banish children from representation about a contract they share with adults that is up for radical revision as to qualifying for adoption. I've never heard of an adoption agency agreeing to adopt a child to a situation where adults possess a contract that banishes them for life from either a mother or father. And if I did hear of it, you'd better believe children "have a right to be heard" (brief the court) on such a matter.

Notice how the National Review never mentioned the Infancy Doctrine?

Or 'banishing' anyone for life? Because the National Review may be conservative- but they aren't stupid or delusional.

Matter of fact, the National Review didn't say one thing against gays adopting children- though like you they misrepresented the facts by claiming that the ACLU's goal is to shut down St. Vincents and others like it

Dumont v. Lyon - Complaint

What the ACLU seeks to prevent the state from allowing those private adoption agencies from discriminating against gay couples.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What the ACLU seeks to prevent the state from allowing those private adoption agencies from discriminating against gay couples.

Contractors acting as government agents are not "private adoption agencies" since they are functioning on the taxpayer dime.

A better way to say that would have been: "What the ACLU seeks to prevent the state from allowing taxpayer funded contracted agencies from discriminating against gay couples."



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Contractors acting as government agents are not "private adoption agencies" since they are functioning on the taxpayer dime.

A better way to say that would have been: "What the ACLU seeks to prevent the state from allowing taxpayer funded contracted agencies from discriminating against gay couples."

Yes, that's the plaintiff's argument for sure. Which is why it's interesting that they'd try to shut out a secular argument pro-child, nothing to do with funding or religion (what is best for the orphans of Michigan with the new precedent being sought: using a contract to banish orphans from a father for life). I hope the court allows the missing party(s) to the case to be able to brief the court. That would be the proper legal thing to do. Otherwise it would be a mistrial.

 

[Silhouette]

Notice how the National Review never mentioned the Infancy Doctrine?

.

Yet.
-

 

[Syriusly]

Notice how the National Review never mentioned the Infancy Doctrine?

.

Yet.
-

Ever

 

[Silhouette]

Then why are people who are adopted orphans & their guardians trying to intervene in the suit? To talk about religion? Maybe the judge will cut them a deal & let them brief court so long as they never mention minor' contract rights or the fact that Obergefell said children share the terms & benefits of the marriage contract?

New judicial activist rule called the "partially gagged intervenors".

 

[mdk]

Then why are people who are adopted orphans & their guardians trying to intervene in the suit? To talk about religion? Maybe the judge will cut them a deal & let them brief court so long as they never mention minor' contract rights or the fact that Obergefell said children share the terms & benefits of the marriage contract?

New judicial activist rule called the "partially gagged intervenors".

You already have a built-in excuse. When they don’t mention this silly notion that children are partners in the contract of their parent’s marriage, you can just claim the judge gagged them from doing so.

 

[Silhouette]

Then why are people who are adopted orphans & their guardians trying to intervene in the suit? To talk about religion? Maybe the judge will cut them a deal & let them brief court so long as they never mention minor' contract rights or the fact that Obergefell said children share the terms & benefits of the marriage contract?

New judicial activist rule called the "partially gagged intervenors".

You already have a built-in excuse. When they don’t mention this silly notion that children are partners in the contract of their parent’s marriage, you can just claim the judge gagged them from doing so.

I am taking the lead from Justice Thomas. He urged the lower courts to not play sympathy to the whiners and sympathy-milkers. I doubt these lower court judges will continue on the path of sequestering interested parties away from these family law cases anymore. I sort of said that as a joke. The judge will either admit the child-intervenors or he won't. Once he does, I expect them to cite their own interests in the marriage contract. If they don't, why else would they join the case?

After all, this is a case about "married lesbians" seeking "the same rights as hetero marrieds" in adoption. Only they aren't caring about those rights when it comes to the other partners to a marriage contract: Michigan's orphans. Because they have rights too: the right to not be bound by a contract that manifestly banishes them for life from a father.

 

[mdk]

Then why are people who are adopted orphans & their guardians trying to intervene in the suit? To talk about religion? Maybe the judge will cut them a deal & let them brief court so long as they never mention minor' contract rights or the fact that Obergefell said children share the terms & benefits of the marriage contract?

New judicial activist rule called the "partially gagged intervenors".

You already have a built-in excuse. When they don’t mention this silly notion that children are partners in the contract of their parent’s marriage, you can just claim the judge gagged them from doing so.

I am taking the lead from Justice Thomas. He urged the lower courts to not play sympathy to the whiners and sympathy-milkers. I doubt these lower court judges will continue on the path of sequestering interested parties away from these family law cases anymore. I sort of said that as a joke. The judge will either admit the child-intervenors or he won't. Once he does, I expect them to cite their own interests in the marriage contract. If they don't, why else would they join the case?

After all, this is a case about "married lesbians" seeking "the same rights as hetero marrieds" in adoption. Only they aren't caring about those rights when it comes to the other partners to a marriage contract: Michigan's orphans. Because they have rights too: the right to not be bound by a contract that manifestly banishes them for life from a father.

The whole foundation of your premise rests on the false notion that children are partners in the marriage contract of their parents. Not one jurisdiction in this nation recognizes your assertion. Not one. This is why you have such a laughable track record concerning legal outcomes. You the cite the law as you wish it to be and demand everyone adhere to it. The thing is...no one is bound by your imagination.

 

[Silhouette]

The whole foundation of your premise rests on the false notion that children are partners in the marriage contract of their parents. Not one jurisdiction in this nation recognizes your assertion. Not one. This is why you have such a laughable track record concerning legal outcomes. You the cite the law as you wish it to be and demand everyone adhere to it. The thing is...no one is bound by your imagination.

Except the USSC, which named children as co-beneficiaries of the marriage contract in their third tier of rational, page 15 of the Obergefell Opinion.

Thanks for playing though!

 

[mdk]

The whole foundation of your premise rests on the false notion that children are partners in the marriage contract of their parents. Not one jurisdiction in this nation recognizes your assertion. Not one. This is why you have such a laughable track record concerning legal outcomes. You the cite the law as you wish it to be and demand everyone adhere to it. The thing is...no one is bound by your imagination.

Except the USSC, which named children as co-beneficiaries of the marriage contract in their third tier of rational, page 15 of the Obergefell Opinion.

Thanks for playing though!

No, the court didn’t say children are partners in the marriage contract of their parents. That’s just your imagination...again.

 

[Dragonlady]

Then why are people who are adopted orphans & their guardians trying to intervene in the suit? To talk about religion? Maybe the judge will cut them a deal & let them brief court so long as they never mention minor' contract rights or the fact that Obergefell said children share the terms & benefits of the marriage contract?

New judicial activist rule called the "partially gagged intervenors".

You already have a built-in excuse. When they don’t mention this silly notion that children are partners in the contract of their parent’s marriage, you can just claim the judge gagged them from doing so.

I am taking the lead from Justice Thomas. He urged the lower courts to not play sympathy to the whiners and sympathy-milkers. I doubt these lower court judges will continue on the path of sequestering interested parties away from these family law cases anymore. I sort of said that as a joke. The judge will either admit the child-intervenors or he won't. Once he does, I expect them to cite their own interests in the marriage contract. If they don't, why else would they join the case?

After all, this is a case about "married lesbians" seeking "the same rights as hetero marrieds" in adoption. Only they aren't caring about those rights when it comes to the other partners to a marriage contract: Michigan's orphans. Because they have rights too: the right to not be bound by a contract that manifestly banishes them for life from a father.

Bullshit. Adoption doesn’t guarantee anyone two opposite parents for the rest of their lives. You’re demanding preconditions to adoptions by gays that aren’t imposed on single parent adoptees or straight couple adoptions: that the child will have an opposite sex parent as long as they live.

And better one parent, or two same sex parents than no parents, or abusive, toxic parents.

 

[Silhouette]

Adoption doesn’t guarantee anyone two opposite parents for the rest of their lives. You’re demanding preconditions to adoptions by gays that aren’t imposed on single parent adoptees or straight couple adoptions

Ah, but what single parents don't impose upon adopted children is a contract they share with them that says "for life you will have no father". "Married" lesbians impose that ban using a contract. There's the key difference. Contract law where adults share benefits and terms with children. Obergefell said in their third tier of rationale (Page 15 of the Opinion) that children share benefits of the marriage contract. ergo, they are implicit partners to that contract.

Imagine an adoption agency placing a boy saying to him "as a result of this placement, you can eradicate any hope of having a father, for life". That's child abuse.

Sorry. Try again.

 

[Syriusly]

The whole foundation of your premise rests on the false notion that children are partners in the marriage contract of their parents. Not one jurisdiction in this nation recognizes your assertion. Not one. This is why you have such a laughable track record concerning legal outcomes. You the cite the law as you wish it to be and demand everyone adhere to it. The thing is...no one is bound by your imagination.

Except the USSC, which named children as co-beneficiaries of the marriage contract in their third tier of rational, page 15 of the Obergefell Opinion.

And of course that is not what the Supreme Court said- but you know that- but I am glad to provide what the Supreme 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, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510.

Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, 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 to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___.

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

So what the Supreme Court recognized is that denying marriage to gay couples hurts their children.

Why do you want to harm children?

 

[Syriusly]

Adoption doesn’t guarantee anyone two opposite parents for the rest of their lives. You’re demanding preconditions to adoptions by gays that aren’t imposed on single parent adoptees or straight couple adoptions

Ah, but what single parents don't impose upon adopted children is a contract they share with them that says "for life you will have no father". "Married" lesbians impose that ban using a contract. There's the key difference. Contract law where adults share benefits and terms with children.

There is absolutely no contract which can ban a 'father' from someone's life forever.

A couple consisting of two women adopting children provide them with two mom's- but as I have repeatedly pointed out- there is nothing which prevents the adoptive parents from allowing the biological father into his child's lives.

I have seen exactly that happen- couple adopts children- but biological father remains an integral part of the kids lives.

As always- you are just lying.

 

[Silhouette]

There is absolutely no contract which can ban a 'father' from someone's life forever.

A couple consisting of two women adopting children provide them with two mom's-

But a married couple have spoken terms of a contract which does not allow for a third parent in the home. Unless they're talking about promising to provide a father contact outside the home on a regular basis, their contract declares on its face "there will be no father ever under the same roof with this boy". Yes, that's what it says. Unless they're talking polygamy. But, technically, that's still not legal. Though in the truest spirit of the 14th + Obergefell, it actually is as legal as gay marriage. Otherwise it would be "putting children at harm by not allowing their parents to marry" and "denying consenting adults in love, committed to each other the right to marry".

 

[Syriusly]

There is absolutely no contract which can ban a 'father' from someone's life forever.

A couple consisting of two women adopting children provide them with two mom's-

But a married couple have spoken terms of a contract which does not allow for a third parent in the home..

Where in the contract does it say that?

Are you saying that if a man and a woman- both with kids from previous marriages- marry- they can't rent out a room to the dad of the mom's kids?

You just make this crap up in order to deny children parents and homes.