Jump to content

Menu

What would you do? The crazy circ case from Florida


poppy
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://wtop.com/health/2015/05/fla-mom-jailed-in-sons-circumcision-case-due-before-judge/

 

Background:

Son is not circumcised, parents are not together, father gets court order demanding circ when the child is 4, mom refuses, is jailed for it.  Agrees to have procedure done in order to get out of jail (and back to her kid- mom is custodial parent).

 

So this story seems done, the surgery is completed.  What would you have done in her shoes? 
Please no "Not have a child out of wedlock" replies, I'm talking about the parenting and legal issues in the current circumstance.

 

I am baffled by this case in so many ways, and I do not understand the judge's logic at all.  I think it's terrible.  But what would I do if my choices were be in jail away from my child or consent to unnecessary surgery? I guess I would have consented.  And cried a lot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot even imagine. :(

 

The mother had no choice. That is awful.

 

I'm not even anti-circ, but I am appalled by the whole thing. If both parents don't agree, the answer should be NO.

 

And forcing that surgery on a 4yo boy and taking his mom away from him and putting her in jail... :crying:

 

Disgusting all around.

  • Like 21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But according to the article she originally agreed to the circumsition in a parenting agreement in court. I imagine during that time the father made compromises as well in order to get some of the things he wanted, circumsition being one of them. So it appears she legally consented but changed her mind. She dug her own grave by consenting in the first place. Had she not done that I imagine she could have fought against it better.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But according to the article she originally agreed to the circumsition in a parenting agreement in court. I imagine during that time the father made compromises as well in order to get some of the things he wanted, circumsition being one of them. So it appears she legally consented but changed her mind. She dug her own grave by consenting in the first place. Had she not done that I imagine she could have fought against it better.

I'm sure that is true, but maybe she didn't think it was a big deal at the time she agreed to it, because let's face it, circ is a common thing. But maybe as the time approached, she did more research and decided it wasn't necessary and that she didn't want her little boy to go through the pain, fear, and trauma involved with the surgery.

 

I think both parents should have had to have been on-board with the decision in order for the procedure to have occurred. I also think it is a ridiculous thing to have in a court order. We're not talking about a necessary lifesaving procedure here.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Changing your mind and refusing to follow an agreement like that makes judges angry. Plus, she took the child and hid with him, making matters worse. I have two friends who divorced abusers and this smells to me like he is an abuser who wants control, and she was hiding in the domestic violence shelter because he was threatening her. He got what he wanted, full custody (at least for right now), control over the situation, and she has a gag order so she can't tell the whole story.

 

But she might be a nut who wouldn't do anything she agreed to and the dad made a bad call and decided to make her stick to the circumcision and it spiraled and she left. In that case it would just be two dysfunctional people who are going to burden the legal system. 

 

It is hard to know when they can't talk to the press.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I read before, she agreed to it when he was an infant, but the dad didn't have it done and she decided that it would be too traumatizing to do it when he was older when the dad finally got around to scheduling it. I think it's a horrible situation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She agreed to have a baby circumcised, not a 4 year old.

 

Aren't family courts supposed to look after the best interest of the child?  I can see the judge being annoyed at the mom, but I can't see how is this outcome better for the child.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I read, the father noticed his son was peeing on his leg when he was standing up to pee in the toilet, he sought medical advice and was told his son should be circumcised. Mother agreed to it then when the father went to the doctor to set up the operation, the mother refused to sign a consent form. The father sought other doctors and mom again refused so no doctor would agree to do the procedure. So the father went back to court to force the mother to stand by her agreement, she not only refused she fled with the boy. There are two sides to every story.  The truth is somewhere in the middle between what the mom and dad are saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I read, the father noticed his son was peeing on his leg when he was standing up to pee in the toilet, he sought medical advice and was told his son should be circumcised. Mother agreed to it then when the father went to the doctor to set up the operation, the mother refused to sign a consent form. The father sought other doctors and mom again refused so no doctor would agree to do the procedure. So the father went back to court to force the mother to stand by her agreement, she not only refused she fled with the boy. There are two sides to every story.  The truth is somewhere in the middle between what the mom and dad are saying. 

 

He probably pees on his leg because: he is a preschooler.

Now, if it was "child is getting regular UTIs and mom won't circumcise" that would be a whole different story. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I read, the father noticed his son was peeing on his leg when he was standing up to pee in the toilet, he sought medical advice and was told his son should be circumcised. Mother agreed to it then when the father went to the doctor to set up the operation, the mother refused to sign a consent form. The father sought other doctors and mom again refused so no doctor would agree to do the procedure. So the father went back to court to force the mother to stand by her agreement, she not only refused she fled with the boy. There are two sides to every story. The truth is somewhere in the middle between what the mom and dad are saying.

That is the problem with all of these stories. We only hear what the media tells us, so we never know the whole truth.

 

Whatever the real story is about the parents, I feel so sorry for the little boy. :(

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She agreed to it first in a signed parenting agreement.   So, in that regard, I think she was totally in the wrong.  She was the one who delayed it....and made it far more traumatic for her son than it should have been at all.   She is the one who fled with him.   

 

I'm sorrry, no pity for her.  It's like that actress whose children are now in France.  The reason? She gave false info regarding the husband causing him to lose his Green Card.  Had she not done that, they'd have shared custody here.  But the judge said that basically since she had him barred from the country, he should have custody as she could travel to visit the kids in France/Monaco, but he could not travel here.

 

I do not believe mother's rights trump father's.  Sorry.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were I the judge in this case I'd order both parents to have mandatory psychological evaluations and counseling. Not sure about the dad (although suspicions would be high), but the actions of this woman make her appear to be (at best) deeply disturbed and (at worst) insane. This is not the way responsible adults should behave.

 

I'd also appoint a three doctor panel of experts who would be told the presumption of the parent was in favor of circumcision, but they were impaneled to act in the medical interest of the child. If it was deemed a reasonable option circumcision would proceed, if the panel felt strongly it was against the medical interest of the child to be circumcised at four, the order for circumcision would be reversed.

 

Long term monitoring of the family by Child Protective Services would follow.

 

Crazy people.

 

Bill 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have fled the country.

Musing: how does one flee the country? I don't have a visa, so I guess I'd have to cross a border on foot. I suppose there's a bit of money in the bank I could have taken out ahead of time. But then what? How hard is it to get a job in Mexico or Canada (the only places I could flee to on foot.)

 

Of course, if I had a visa ready, then if I had enough money I could get tickets to anywhere. But again, then what? Can you get a job anywhere? I thought other countries had rules that they hire only citizens of that country? Sort of like not hiring "illegals" here.

 

Maybe if I were like the people in the apocolypse thread who could survive a disaster, I could live with my child and the wolves in the woods. But I'm not like that. I can't do anything to survive out doors.

 

Maybe I'll start a thread about how one flees America.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I am baffled by this case in so many ways, and I do not understand the judge's logic at all.  

 

I imagine part of his logic is that parents need to see that court and custody agreements mean something, and not wanting to encourage other parents to defy court orders. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have fled the country.

 

You would flee the country, and keep your son from his father forever? Keep him from any future half-siblings, his paternal family, his home? Good luck explaining that when he turns 18. 

 

More practically, most people don't have the money to flee to another country and they don't have the money to support themselves once there - I mean, you can't just decide you are going to live and work in another country. Life is not a movie. You need passports to get out of the country, and then you need a work visa. Other countries have laws about illegal immigration, too! 

 

She would have needed to criminally fake the father's permission to even get the passport, and then criminally fake having his permission to take him out of the country. Then figure out how to live and stay in hiding. Same for you. Perhaps the two of you have wealth and criminal connections that most of us don't, but honestly I think 'fleeing the country' is a facile answer. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine part of his logic is that parents need to see that court and custody agreements mean something, and not wanting to encourage other parents to defy court orders. 

 

Why anger at the mother for defying a court order, but not anger at the father for using his son's genitalia as a battleground?  I honestly can't think of any good reason he didn't back down or consent to amending the paternity agreement when this battle became pitched.   Because he thought.... the kid might continue to pee funny? 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why anger at the mother for defying a court order, but not anger at the father for using his son's genitalia as a battleground?  I honestly can't think of any good reason he didn't back down or consent to amending the paternity agreement when this battle became pitched.   Because he thought.... the kid might continue to pee funny? 

 

My post did not express any anger toward the mother for defying a court order; I simply said that the judge's logic probably pertained to the importance of following court orders. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would flee the country, and keep your son from his father forever? Keep him from any future half-siblings, his paternal family, his home? Good luck explaining that when he turns 18. 

 

More practically, most people don't have the money to flee to another country and they don't have the money to support themselves once there - I mean, you can't just decide you are going to live and work in another country. Life is not a movie. You need passports to get out of the country, and then you need a work visa. Other countries have laws about illegal immigration, too! 

 

She would have needed to criminally fake the father's permission to even get the passport, and then criminally fake having his permission to take him out of the country. Then figure out how to live and stay in hiding. Same for you. Perhaps the two of you have wealth and criminal connections that most of us don't, but honestly I think 'fleeing the country' is a facile answer. 

 

I am speaking only from my personal perspective. I live 10 miles to the border of Mexico, which you can walk across. My kids both have passports, which I don't even believe you need to walk into Mexico. My youngest is a Mexican citizen (by birth in Puerto Vallarta), and my oldest son and I could get citizenship. My kids are also Canadians and Jewish, so both Canada and Israel are also options. I have a law degree from Stanford, speak several languages, and enough money to get us started. If my husband wanted to mutilate our sons, I would absolutely run. 

 

ETA: I do have some Italian relatives, with very large homes on the Long Island Sound, who are rumored to have mob connections, but I think this is just family folklore. ;)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My post did not express any anger toward the mother for defying a court order; I simply said that the judge's logic probably pertained to the importance of following court orders. 

 

Fair enough, but, what do you think of this- the judge said she remain be in jail "indefinitely" until she consented to the surgery.   While it is important to follow court orders, that is a more severe consequence than many, many offenders face for far more serious crimes than breach of a paternity agreement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but, what do you think of this- the judge said she remain be in jail "indefinitely" until she consented to the surgery.   While it is important to follow court orders, that is a more severe consequence than many, many offenders face for far more serious crimes than breach of a paternity agreement.

 

She ran with the child. Any parent who acted in the fashion she did, no mater which side of this issue they were on. would deserve judicial rebuke (and jail time).

 

Bill

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only have a child out of wedlock with a guy with an intact penis.

"Gee, Bob, I know it's only our first date and all, but Match.com didn't have this on the questionnaire so I need to ask you a quick question before we take this any further...." ;)

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it really came down to her agreeing originally to have the child circumcised.

 

But that was years ago. And parenting plans change all the time. I don't have to hold to the same visitation schedule forever, just becuase my ex and I signed a document. We have the right to go to court and have it changed if that is in the best interest of the child. These agreements are not meant to be "forever and ever", just a "for now" thing, until and unless circumstances change. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, she didn't flee for years, just for the past month or so, maybe a few months. The dad never had the surgery done, she thought it was no longer an issue. Then all of a sudden at 4 yrs old the dad is tired of the kid dribbling pee and decides he needs to be circed after all. Mom is adamently against this, the kid is 4 yrs old, would need general anesthesia, and the kid doesn't want it done (obviously). The dad claims the kid needs it done because he has a non retracting foreskin,but it's NORMAL for the foreskin not to retract at that age, so that isn't a medical reason. It's all a power play. Mom was trying to protect her son from a surgery he doesn't need, and hid in a domestic violence shelter while her lawyer tried to work something out. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She ran with the child. Any parent who acted in the fashion she did, no mater which side of this issue they were on. would deserve judicial rebuke (and jail time).

 

Bill

This.

 

I think that people tend to forget that parental kidnapping is a felony, and custodial interference - depending on the severity - can be as well.

 

Once custody agreements are mediated by the court, they are legally binding until amended. They can be amended, either parent or both can ask for this, and go through mediation or court hearing to renegotiate, but you still have to do it the legal way.

 

The whole thing is just bizarre to me though, I mean...dude, your kid is four, it's probably best to just LET IT GO!!!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This.

 

I think that people tend to forget that parental kidnapping is a felony, and custodial interference - depending on the severity - can be as well.

 

Once custody agreements are mediated by the court, they are legally binding until amended. They can be amended, either parent or both can ask for this, and go through mediation or court hearing to renegotiate, but you still have to do it the legal way.

 

The whole thing is just bizarre to me though, I mean...dude, your kid is four, it's probably best to just LET IT GO!!!

 

I get that.  This is why I posed it as a WWYD? Perhaps the problem was her failure to go through the proper channels to  amend the agreement.  But if she did, and the judge just didn't agree with her......... what do you do then?  I guess you let the child get the surgery.  But looking for amnesty while desperately struggling to find a legal way out of that isn't insane, I don't think.

 

I wonder what would happen if this was a vaccination case instead of circumcision.  

 

Saying that for myself, to look at my own biases, since I am pro-vax (for my kids) but anti-circ (for my kids).  I really don't think it changes anything, though.  Having no choice in having your young child go through what you believe to be unnecessary and invasive and potentially damaging procedures is not a good situation. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This.

 

I think that people tend to forget that parental kidnapping is a felony, and custodial interference - depending on the severity - can be as well.

 

Once custody agreements are mediated by the court, they are legally binding until amended. They can be amended, either parent or both can ask for this, and go through mediation or court hearing to renegotiate, but you still have to do it the legal way.

 

The whole thing is just bizarre to me though, I mean...dude, your kid is four, it's probably best to just LET IT GO!!!

 

She did try to go through the courts first. She didn't flea until the court overruled her request to change it, and her request for a guardian ad litem.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She did try to go through the courts first. She didn't flea until the court overruled her request to change it, and her request for a guardian ad litem.

 

Yes, the judge disagreed with her based on the testimony of numerous medical experts that her concerns were unfounded.  (She testified that she was concerned her son would not wake up from anesthesia.)  She and her attorney filed a lawsuit saying that the child could end up with permanent brain damage or death from the procedure.  I'm sorry, but those are not real risks born out in medical journals.  She comes across as extreme....and having her son become the poster boy for intactivist did not help her case.   The fact that the urologists were bullied and scared to do the procedure doesn't help her case either.  Are they going to be targeted like abortion doctors?  I mean, come on, please.  

 

I also think the Mom stoked the fears in the boy, which is reprehensible.  Had she gone ahead with it when he was one, when they signed the parenting agreement, no need for general either.

 

Do I think the father should have still pursued it at four, when apparently the medical condition no longer warranted it? Nope...but in his defense, a urologist had told him that the child would still benefit from it...so I can't blame him from trusting somebody whose medical specialty deals with this. 

 

For the person who claimed her partner was abusive, that was never an accusation made in court.  I'm sure she would have had she thought it would hold weight.  She took refuge in a DV shelter, but she never claimed abuse.  

 

The moral of the story.... don't sign something you don't understand.  She claims she didn't know about circumcision when she signed it.  Well, then don't sign it.  And never ever kidnap a child.  That basically was the nails in the coffin of her case.  

 

 

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-circumcision-court-battle-hearing-20150310-story.html

 

http://www.browardpalmbeach.com/news/heather-hironimus-to-remain-in-jail-as-judge-withholds-from-ruling-on-circumcision-case-6984381

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/chase_nebus_hironimus_circumcision_battle_intactivists_form_chase_s_guardians.html

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She'd already lost the case before she took off with the kid. It was give him up for surgery or leave. She didn't have any chance of winning at that point, so she tried to buy time. And yes, death IS a risk of ANY operation that involves general. And even on a 1 yr old it involves general, I'm nearly positive.

 

She didn't lose this case because she fled, she fled because she lost. 

 

As for her making the kid afraid, um, hello- what 4 year old would be okay with having his penis operated on? They are pretty attached to it by then. I think he was probably afraid all on his own, before she said a word. Maybe she did make it worse, but it's not like the kid was eager to have it done. And since the diagnoses the father gave was a foreskin that doesnt' retract, and the boy isn't supposed to have a foreskin that retracts at that age, I'm not sure I buy that there was a medical reason. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

She lost.  It doesn't mean she gets to take the law into her own hands.  Sorry.  Fleeing a generally recognized as safe medical procedure is not a sane thing to do.  In all honesty, I think the mother is mentally unbalanced and should lose custody. 

 

No, circumcision at one years of age does not require general.  I know, because my son needed the operation at 18 months.  It was local. 

 

The risk of death from anesthesia at that age is extremely extremely extremely unlikely.  The child is at more risk going to and from the court house in his Mom's car. 

 

Her actions were unbalanced.  She told the boy that they were going to cut off his penis.  Not true.  She is 100% culpable for his fears.  I have no pity for this woman at all.  I hope she loses custody, although I don't think that's a possible outcome.  I view her as a horrific unbalanced woman.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think she should have told him he was getting his penis chopped off, but at 4 years old, children have a right to know what's happening to their bodies, and factually, he was having part of his penis removed. I would definitely have discussed that with a child over 2.

 

We've had the fleeing thing happen here over vaccination. I don't support the parents losing custody over that. The bar for losing custody needs to be higher than that, imo.

 

By pushing so hard on a non-necessary procedure, the father is also at fault.

 

Yes, but can a four year old distinguish between that? I don't think so.  Why scare the child more? That is bad parenting IMHO.  Let the pediatric urologist explain it, as they've done it thousands of times.

 

In the father's defense a urologist had told him that his child would still benefit from the procedure.  He was taking medical advice of an expert in the field.  The pediatrician agreed.

 

I don't think fleeing over vaccination is acceptable either.  I'm sorry.  You are trying to permanently keep the other parent out of their child's life over what is a recognized best practice to keep your child and others safe.   Vaccination/Variolation goes back over 1000 years.  It's way beyond Jenner. 

 

If you try and permanently deprive the other parent of custody why shouldn't you lose custody?  If you can't be trusted to not kidnap the child, why should you still have access to that child?  If a parent in a custody dispute kidnaps the child, should they get to keep that child? Does it matter if it's the mother or the father?  What if there is no perceived risk to the child, just I want the child and don't want the other parent to have him/her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She lost. It doesn't mean she gets to take the law into her own hands. Sorry. Fleeing a generally recognized as safe medical procedure is not a sane thing to do. In all honesty, I think the mother is mentally unbalanced and should lose custody.

 

No, circumcision at one years of age does not require general. I know, because my son needed the operation at 18 months. It was local.

 

The risk of death from anesthesia at that age is extremely extremely extremely unlikely. The child is at more risk going to and from the court house in his Mom's car.

 

Her actions were unbalanced. She told the boy that they were going to cut off his penis. Not true. She is 100% culpable for his fears. I have no pity for this woman at all. I hope she loses custody, although I don't think that's a possible outcome. I view her as a horrific unbalanced woman.

I don't think she is 100% responsible for his fears, many kids fear getting basic blood work done at 4. Going into surgery is scary. Going into surgery when you are not sick is confusing. Going into surgery that will result in a very noticeable (to the kid) cosmetic difference is strange.

 

I only wish the child had a neutral representative in court who could say, do the benefits outweigh the risks? Can this procedure wait until the child is old enough to consent? I think the child's best interest should be the driver when forcing medical procedures.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think she is 100% responsible for his fears, many kids fear getting basic blood work done at 4. Going into surgery is scary. Going into surgery when you are not sick is confusing. Going into surgery that will result in a very noticeable (to the kid) cosmetic difference is strange.

 

I only wish the child had a neutral representative in court who could say, do the benefits outweigh the risks? Can this procedure wait until the child is old enough to consent? I think the child's best interest should be the driver when forcing medical procedures.

 

I agree that a neutral representative would be nice.  But that's why we have medical experts, the WHO, the AAP, and others.  They have all come out recently saying that there are medical benefits to circumcision.  A friend of mine is in Africa (and has been for years) doing voluntary adult male circumcision as part of a massive public health program.  Why? Because it has such a big impact on HIV rates.  

 

We know it's easier to recover from the earlier it's done.  Best is as a neonate.  It's far easier before a child hits puberty, as well.   So having the operation done now, makes far more sense than having it as a teen or an adult.  It's an easier, less risky procedure as an infant or young child.  In that regard, it did make sense to go ahead with it.

 

In general, though, the AAP says there are benefits but the decision should be left up to the parents.  My guess is if the urologist and pediatrician had said there was no benefit to circumcising the child, the father would not have pursued it.  Even if he had, the judge would have been more likely to find in the mother's favor.  But that didn't happen.  I'll also add, for those that are cynical, it only adds risk to the urologist to want to circumcise a four year old child.   If he truly felt there was no benefit, I don't see him doing.  Anything goes wrong.... such a notorious case.....legal disputes of parents.... add to it a pediatric case.... too much medicolegal liability.  So really, I'm going to believe that the urologist saw a true need/benefit.  

 

I understand that there are cases when fleeing makes sense....when abuse is ongoing...etc.  In this case, that was not the situation.  It was a one shot deal....an extremely safe medical procedure, with a very very very low risk of death/complication.  IMHO, the Mom was stupid to put her custody in jeopardy over that.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, sounds to me like a control issue/power play between the two parents. If it wasn't circumcision, it would be something else. Based on the information presented, both parents seem unreasonable.

I'm not sure that's fair.

 

My ex was awful BUT we have been able to deal with the parenting plan and make a lot of compromises. However if we'd had a boy, court would have been hell, both over the name and circumcision. I said from before marriage, circ is a man's choice and names will not be religious. After marriage he reneged.

 

Luckily we had girls.

 

I have no idea what I would have done. I have gone over it a million times in my head while pregnant with my second.

 

Kidnapping is not an option, however, on either side.

 

I think nobody can say unless that are in that situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't make sense, I agree.

 

I don't know about Australia, but here, the default is public school.  So, even if the kids have been homeschooled for their entire lives, if all of a sudden one parent disagrees, the kids goes back to public school.  You could do one of the virtual schools and still quality though, so I guess there are some ways around it.

 

I don't know the extent of the urologists testimony. I have not read the court transcripts.   I'm going to assume that the Mom's lawyer asked about harm from not doing the procedure.

 

My gut feeling is that because of the Mom's actions and her supporters' actions.... the lawsuits... the contempt of court... the kidnapping...the death threats to the urologists by her supporters.... that this is why they did not let status quo (of no circumcision) prevail.   Coupled with the fact that they had medical testimony saying that the boy would benefit and the previously signed document.  I think all of that together made it highly unlikely Mom would prevail.  Had she not kidnapped the boy....and had this been kept more quiet in the press.....no death threats, etc... she might have had a better chance even with the signed parenting plan.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the father is a jerk. The boy has stated he doesn't want part of his penis removed. (And what 4 year old would) I'm sure he knows his parents are fighting over this. He will REMEMBER the surgery and the painful healing process.

 

Circumcision is not nearly as widely accepted as it once was here in the US. That boy will grow up with the knowledge that his father forced an uneccessary surgery on him, which will permanently alter his future sex life. I wouldn't be surprised if he grows to resent and hate his father.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the father is a jerk. The boy has stated he doesn't want part of his penis removed. (And what 4 year old would) I'm sure he knows his parents are fighting over this. He will REMEMBER the surgery and the painful healing process.

 

Circumcision is not nearly as widely accepted as it once was here in the US. That boy will grow up with the knowledge that his father forced an uneccessary surgery on him, which will permanently alter his future sex life. I wouldn't be surprised if he grows to resent and hate his father.

 

He may also come to resent his mother for agreeing, not following through, fleeing with him, and trying to keep him from his father. I would imagine he's going to have plenty of anger for both of them for putting him in this position and making it so public.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fwiw, the boy did not *need* to be circumcised. One dr claimed he suffered from phimosis. Which is ridiculous. Phimosis is when the foreskin is fused ti the head of the penis. Guess what? 100% of baby boys are born with their foreskin fused to their penis. The foreskin naturally detaches sometime before puberty. The average age being 10. Teens/adults who can not retract can be treated with steroids to loosen it. Circumcision is rarely necessary. So the dr who diagnosed him with phimosis at age 4 (or younger) is an American dr who was never taught about the normal development of an intact penis.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that a neutral representative would be nice. But that's why we have medical experts, the WHO, the AAP, and others. They have all come out recently saying that there are medical benefits to circumcision. A friend of mine is in Africa (and has been for years) doing voluntary adult male circumcision as part of a massive public health program. Why? Because it has such a big impact on HIV rates.

 

We know it's easier to recover from the earlier it's done. Best is as a neonate. It's far easier before a child hits puberty, as well. So having the operation done now, makes far more sense than having it as a teen or an adult. It's an easier, less risky procedure as an infant or young child. In that regard, it did make sense to go ahead with it.

 

In general, though, the AAP says there are benefits but the decision should be left up to the parents. My guess is if the urologist and pediatrician had said there was no benefit to circumcising the child, the father would not have pursued it. Even if he had, the judge would have been more likely to find in the mother's favor. But that didn't happen. I'll also add, for those that are cynical, it only adds risk to the urologist to want to circumcise a four year old child. If he truly felt there was no benefit, I don't see him doing. Anything goes wrong.... such a notorious case.....legal disputes of parents.... add to it a pediatric case.... too much medicolegal liability. So really, I'm going to believe that the urologist saw a true need/benefit.

 

I understand that there are cases when fleeing makes sense....when abuse is ongoing...etc. In this case, that was not the situation. It was a one shot deal....an extremely safe medical procedure, with a very very very low risk of death/complication. IMHO, the Mom was stupid to put her custody in jeopardy over that.

It sounds like circ is a black and white issue to you. There are benefits, a doc approved it, it is super safe. I think of many many docs in the US who have kids on daily Miralax . A standard suggestion from pediatricians just now starting to come under scrutiny because it's not a chemical you want in your body and there are questions about it being absorbed. Irreversible surgery that was until recently not recommended (and parents lobbied to change the recommendation to get insurance coverage....) is not a black and white issue to me. I think the parents are both at some fault here , don't get me wrong, but this medically a question mark . I think it shouldn't have been done on judges orders under one parent's obvious duress without pressing medical need .

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...