Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[moocowmoo]

A Florida mother is hoping the Fourth District Court of Appeals will intervene and stop a court order that her 3-year-old son be circumcised.

Heather Hironimus of Boynton Beach and Dennis Nebus of Boca Raton had a child together in 2010 and entered into a parenting agreement more than a year later. The agreement clearly stated that the father would be responsible for scheduling and paying for the boy's circumcision.

But now that the boy is 3 and has not yet been circumcised, the mother objects, because, as court documents explain it, the procedure is "not medically necessary and she did not want to have the parties' son undergo requisite general anesthesia for fear of death."

However, Judge Jeffrey Gillen last week ordered that there's no reason the parties shouldn't abide by the parenting agreement and that the father can go ahead and schedule the procedure.

Article and court ruling:
http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2014/05/florida_circumcise_3-year-old_boy_s.php
http://www.scribd.com/doc/224052504/Order-Enforcing-Final-Judgment

The boy has no say in the matter of course. He's certainly past the age of the "they won't remember it" excuse as well.

[Xantalos]

...
Disappoint sigh.

[Sergarr]

WTH is a "parenting agreement"?

[RedKing]

WTH is a "parenting agreement"?

I'm guessing the parents weren't married, so it's a civil contract similar to a separation agreement or divorce agreement that spells out who is responsible for what and what the two parties agree to, at a time when they're both calmer about it. Maybe he's just a sperm donor.

I don't see the issue here. They both entered into an agreement that the kid would be circumcised and that the dad would pay for it and schedule it. My only questions would be:

1. Was the father delinquent in scheduling this ASAP after the agreement was signed?
2. Had the mother been obstructing his ability to schedule this?

Honestly, the agreement should have been created and signed prior to birth to avoid issues like this.


(Yeah, I know...y'all are gonna say I'm missing the whole point, think of the child, etc. I'm not as sanguine about circumcision as many on here.)

[Jopax]

Yeah, it's not the issue with what the procedure is tbh. It's why he didn't carry it out and if he didn't why is the court involved in not carrying it out anyways.

[RedKing]

Also, I'm not sure that they would need general anesthesia. A local plus some Valium (or pediatrically-indicated equivalent) would suffice I would think.

[Bauglir]

I think it was pretty stupid to put this in a legal document, and pretty stupid to then fail to follow through on it for three years. No, I'm not going to argue about the merits of circumcision specifically, because it's not where the parents fucked up. Unfortunately for the child, I think the judge made the legally correct call, and it sucks that the parents were incompetent enough to create a situation where the only alternative was to set a poor legal precedent. Would be the same if they'd decided on a particular private school, or something.

[Karlito]

Also, I'm not sure that they would need general anesthesia. A local plus some Valium (or pediatrically-indicated equivalent) would suffice I would think.

This is true of quite a few medical procedures (e.g. colonoscopies) given in America.

[RedKing]

Also, I'm not sure that they would need general anesthesia. A local plus some Valium (or pediatrically-indicated equivalent) would suffice I would think.

This is true of quite a few medical procedures (e.g. colonoscopies) given in America.

True, but in this case I don't know that it's going to be SO traumatic or unpleasant that it requires a general. I was planned to have a vasectomy and they were only going to use Valium + a local.

[moocowmoo]

I think genital surgery would rank pretty high on my scale of "unpleasant". Worse still for a child of his age, whose foreskin is most likely still fused to the glans. It must be forcibly separated before it is cut or crushed off.

[RedKing]

So is having the muscles attached to your eyeball snipped and reattached. We had that done to my daughter when she was 2. She survived (including general anesthesia) and doesn't remember the experience at all.

Likewise, however unpleasant the experience might be for a while, the child would likely not remember it all within a few years.


If you're upset about the legal issues here, I think the consensus is that while the situation is unfortunate, the court is following proper procedure.
If you're just using this as a way to start a debate about circumcision, we've been down that path here before. It doesn't end prettily.

[Moghjubar]

If you're just using this as a way to start a debate about circumcision, we've been down that path here before. It doesn't end prettily.

Wait, I thought that was what this entire topic was, more or less?

I know! Lets refer to the operation as a "court ordered tattoo". 

[Neonivek]

This article seems like a: "Well how else was this supposed to go?"

The father is within his rights to have his son circumcised and while it is indeed "Genital surgery" it is still considered perfectly valid to have done. If this took place in a country that made circumcision illegal (or situational), then yeah I could see it going differently.

The boy has no say in the matter of course.

The concept of allowing young children a say in legal matters is under serious development and is relatively recent in modern times.

Once again, how else was this supposed to go?

[Yoink]

Well, there's my WTF for the day- people arguing in favour of circumcision.

[Neonivek]

people arguing in favour of circumcision

Not really... No one here is.

They are just saying that the article is just a flat out "Well what else what going to happen? What is the injustice here?"

Heck he could have had his son circumcised at age 6 if he wanted to.

HECK one of the reasons why his son is 3 years old is likely because she fought him on this for over a year. So the person most likely responsible for the circumcision at age 3 is her.

I mean say what you will about circumcision... What is the legal issue here?