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

[Silhouette]

All of the required counsel was present.

Can you give me the name(s) of the counsel representing children's unique interests in Dumont v Lyon? This is a case of family law about adoption of children.

The case goes a bit beyond family law. It governs child placement agencies. The agencies' placement decisions are based on meeting the needs of the children. As a fact, placement agencies do place adoptive children in single parent households and same sex households. The decision has nothing to do with what you purport to be saying. The agency's decision was not based on the needs of the child but on religious opinion.

Yes, and children need fathers or the hope someday of a father. So adopting out to singles is not a case where the adopting adult had a contract with another adult that de facto declares "this child will never have a father". Such IS the case with lesbian "marriages".

The case may "go beyond" family law, but it's roots are in family law. So with children having an undeniable stake in the outcome of this case, they MUST have counsel present briefing the court as to their own unique interests and concerns.

 

[Syriusly]

All of the required counsel was present.

Can you give me the name(s) of the counsel representing children's unique interests in Dumont v Lyon? This is a case of family law about adoption of children.

The case goes a bit beyond family law. It governs child placement agencies. The agencies' placement decisions are based on meeting the needs of the children. As a fact, placement agencies do place adoptive children in single parent households and same sex households. The decision has nothing to do with what you purport to be saying. The agency's decision was not based on the needs of the child but on religious opinion.

Yes, and children need fathers or the hope someday of a father. .

the hope of a father.

Yep- you actually believe it is better for children to not have any parents at all- than to have two gay parents- so that they can have the 'hope of a father' someday.

How truly sad your obsessive hatred of gays makes you.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

All of the required counsel was present.

Can you give me the name(s) of the counsel representing children's unique interests in Dumont v Lyon? This is a case of family law about adoption of children.

The case goes a bit beyond family law. It governs child placement agencies. The agencies' placement decisions are based on meeting the needs of the children. As a fact, placement agencies do place adoptive children in single parent households and same sex households. The decision has nothing to do with what you purport to be saying. The agency's decision was not based on the needs of the child but on religious opinion.

Yes, and children need fathers or the hope someday of a father. So adopting out to singles is not a case where the adopting adult had a contract with another adult that de facto declares "this child will never have a father". Such IS the case with lesbian "marriages".

The case may "go beyond" family law, but it's roots are in family law. So with children having an undeniable stake in the outcome of this case, they MUST have counsel present briefing the court as to their own unique interests and concerns.

And fathers are unnecessary. I've handled probably hundreds of family law cases, and cases involving just children in children's court. I've been a court appointed child advocate. Nothing you believe is remotely true. Children seldom have counsel present and involved in any case. Fathers are legally unnecessary. Mothers are legally unnecessary. When there is a parent the courts do urge continuing contact with that parent but only periperherally involving the child. The purpose is for the benefit of the absent parent not the child.

The times when I have been the legal representative of a child in a family law dispute, it had nothing to do with making sure the child's unique needs as to a male and female parent were protected. In every case, it was to protect the child from the vengeance of one or even both parents seeking to weaponize that child against the other parent. The court has no interest in giving a child a female mother and male father. There is no right in any case to a heterosexual set of parents.

But, to answer your question. No mothers and fathers are not necessary and really are being slowly legislated away. Raising children in a non traditional family was proved in Cuba to be the best way to promote loyalty only to the state. It is the best way to raise a child free of bias. Men and women will not be permitted to pass on their religion and their bigotry.

 

[badger2]

What's printed in red in post #140 abounds in pathology. What's printed in black above it, does too. That is why we are exposing the same modus operandi in the Food Coercion thread.

 

[badger2]

Though the State is always fundamentally terrorist (Apollon, A Lasting Heresy), and Socrates thought the State was his father, weaponizing against the other parent is indeed a common pathology of revenge. But to say, as if the arrogant judge was a fortune-teller by night, that the malediction of (material [italics]) suffrage will fall on the unmarried parents is rabid judicial mafia overconfidence.

 

[Silhouette]

And fathers are unnecessary. I've handled probably hundreds of family law cases, and cases involving just children in children's court. I've been a court appointed child advocate. Nothing you believe is remotely true. Children seldom have counsel present and involved in any case. Fathers are legally unnecessary. Mothers are legally unnecessary. When there is a parent the courts do urge continuing contact with that parent but only periperherally involving the child. The purpose is for the benefit of the absent parent not the child.

Well now I know you are so full of shit it's coming out of your ears. Courts always act on the best interest of children. Glad to see you acknowledge that children have advocates and representatives in family law cases, such as the one Dumont v Lyon is. Who is their counsel there?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

And fathers are unnecessary. I've handled probably hundreds of family law cases, and cases involving just children in children's court. I've been a court appointed child advocate. Nothing you believe is remotely true. Children seldom have counsel present and involved in any case. Fathers are legally unnecessary. Mothers are legally unnecessary. When there is a parent the courts do urge continuing contact with that parent but only periperherally involving the child. The purpose is for the benefit of the absent parent not the child.

Well now I know you are so full of shit it's coming out of your ears. Courts always act on the best interest of children. Glad to see you acknowledge that children have advocates and representatives in family law cases, such as the one Dumont v Lyon is. Who is their counsel there?

Dumont v Lyons was a child placement case not a child custody case.

You already know that mothers and fathers are irrelevant. Your confusion comes from an inability to accept the facts.

 

[Silhouette]

Can you ^^ point to case law that has found mothers or fathers irrelevant to children? Thanks.

BTW Dumont v Lyon IS, not was. It's still going through preliminary motions & has not been decided.

 

[Silhouette]

the hope of a father.

Yes. Lesbians "married" is about a contract that extinguishes all hope of any children adopted to them having a father....for life... Pretty significant thing. And so children of Michigan, collectively, particularly all orphans, must have counsel briefing in Dumont v Lyon.

 

[Syriusly]

the hope of a father.

Yes. Lesbians "married" is about a contract that extinguishes all hope of any children adopted to them having a father....for life... Pretty significant thing. .

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects.

Marriage does not require children- but if a couple have children, then those children are harmed if the couple are not allowed to marry.

Now to those children awaiting adoption- their mother and father have already abandoned them- they are without any mother and father- and you prefer that they be without any mother or father- instead of having two mothers or two fathers.

That is a pretty significant thing.

The difference between having two loving parents- and having no parents at all. You prefer the latter- if those parents are gay.

 

[Syriusly]

And fathers are unnecessary. I've handled probably hundreds of family law cases, and cases involving just children in children's court. I've been a court appointed child advocate. Nothing you believe is remotely true. Children seldom have counsel present and involved in any case. Fathers are legally unnecessary. Mothers are legally unnecessary. When there is a parent the courts do urge continuing contact with that parent but only periperherally involving the child. The purpose is for the benefit of the absent parent not the child.

Well now I know you are so full of shit it's coming out of your ears. Courts always act on the best interest of children. Glad to see you acknowledge that children have advocates and representatives in family law cases, such as the one Dumont v Lyon is. Who is their counsel there?

What are the names of the children involved in Dumont v. Lyon?

Who would pay for their representatives?

 

[Syriusly]

Can you ^^ point to case law that has found mothers or fathers irrelevant to children? Thanks..

Can you point to case law that has found that counsel is required to represent imaginary children?

Thanks

 

[Silhouette]

What are the names of the children involved in Dumont v. Lyon?

Who would pay for their representatives?

Don't know. Neither do you. Neither do the lesbians filing suit. Therefore we must assume that they mean any or all the orphans of the state of Michigan, potentially. Therefore any or all of the orphans of the State of Michigan are required to have separate counsel briefing the court on behalf of their stake in this case. That stake would be: the contractual deprivation for life of a father.

Can you point to case law that has found that counsel is required to represent imaginary children?

Thanks

Yes, page 53 (or pdf page 8) here, at the bottom paragraph. Specifically in the footnotes: Infancy Doctrine Inquiries.pdf

Are you suggesting that the as-yet-unknown orphans the lesbians are trying to force the state to adopt to them are "imaginary"?

 

[Syriusly]

What are the names of the children involved in Dumont v. Lyon?

Who would pay for their representatives?

Don't know. Neither do you. Neither do the lesbians filing suit. Therefore we must assume that they mean any or all the orphans of the state of Michigan, potentially.

Who is 'they'? LOL

So what did the court say to your message to them?

 

[Silhouette]

So what did the court say to your message to them?

Nothing yet. But keep an eye on the docket. Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (2:17-cv-13080), Michigan Eastern District Court

Just two days ago the court granted leave for republican state Senator Arlan Meekhof to file his amicus brief. Now if the court would just grant leave for Michigan state orphans to have counsel join the suit on their unique interests in being contractually banned for life from a father. Oh to hope that due process is followed!

 

[Syriusly]

So what did the court say to your message to them?

Nothing yet. But keep an eye on the docket. Dumont et al v. Lyon, et al (2:17-cv-13080), Michigan Eastern District Court

Just two days ago the court granted leave for republican state Senator Arlan Meekhof to file his amicus brief. Now if the court would just grant leave for Michigan state orphans to have counsel join the suit on their unique interests in being contractually banned for life from a father. Oh to hope that due process is followed!

Now if the court would just grant leave for Michigan state unicorns to sprout wings and fly around the courthouse with anti-gay banners.....Oh to hope that due process is followed!

 

[Silhouette]

Except that unicorns aren't real & the orphans of Michigan are real.

 

[Silhouette]

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.

?

 

[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 on behalf of all non-father, non-mother marriages?

In that case, shouldn't the orphans of Michigan in total have separate counsel briefing the court as to their interest in the marriage contract under the roof of Dumont? As in, fatherless for life roof? No? Why would you object to orphans having counsel to represent them in this matter? Please don't tell me that you believe this matter doesn't involve the orphans themselves. As if they were mere pawns in the LGBT vs straights judicial activist (kangaroo) court battles?

 

[Syriusly]

Except that unicorns aren't real & the orphans of Michigan are real.

Except just like unicorns- your interpretation of the law isn't real either.