insideMAN

Mother jailed for refusing to have her son circumcised forced to withdraw her case

by 13 Comments

A US mother who was jailed for refusing to allow her son to be circumcised remains behind bars despite withdrawing her case.

Heather Hironimus, 31, went into hiding with her four-year-old son after a bitter legal battle with the boy’s father Dennis Nebus, reported Sky news.

The couple were never married, but share custody of their child and had filed a parenting agreement in court where they both agreed to their son being circumcised.

‘Scared to death’

But Hironimus later changed her mind, with her son reportedly “scared to death” of the procedure.

In March, a Palm Beach County judge signed a warrant for her arrest after she failed to appear in court so the procedure could be carried out.

She was arrested after going into hiding with her son at a domestic violence shelter.

According to reports, Hironimus has now withdrawn her case in the belief there was no hope of it succeeding and to have continued would have jeopardised her custody rights to her son.

Thomas Hunker, attorney for the mother, told her supporters that his mission now is to try to get Heather “out of jail and preserve her custody rights.”

Legal precedent

However in the latest twist in the extraordinary case, she has not been released as she is now charged with interfering with the father’s custody of the boy.

Judges have sided with Mr Nebus, but surgeons have refused to carry out the operation after Hironimus refused to give consent and anti-circumcision protesters targeted them.

The mother’s lawyer said continuing the lawsuit opposing the circumcision would surely result in “an unfavorable order which could potentially hurt the cause and future efforts to establish a child’s right to object to circumcision. I hope you understand and agree that under the circumstances, this was our only available option”.

The decision to back down from the case has triggered sadness and anger from anti-circumcision campaigners who have backed her case and raised funds to support the legal battle.

Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, told the Sun Sentinal: “What we hope for now is that the father will have compassion for his young son, and not compound the trauma of the past few months with the trauma of a medically unnecessary surgery.”

  • Groan

    It would seem obvious that a medically unnecessary procedure needs the consent of the person themselves. I’d actually genuinely interested to be directed to where one can find the arguments against simply waiting until the child is old enough to make such a decision for themselves? Contrary to people’s beliefs and practice law in England does not assume a particular age for this but assumes that a simple decision can be made by a child. Would it really be so impossible for those cultures that value this to allow the boy to choose?

    • Lawrence Intactivist

      It’s legal to do this to a kid in the UK without consent. Even if the NHS won’t perform it, you can do it privately.

  • Darren Ball

    This is a bitter-sweet story. On the one hand we have the circumcision, which is wrong, but on the other we have the US courts taking very seriously the rights of the father – I don’t believe anything like that would happen in the UK.

    • Angela Erdstrom

      “Father?” You mean, the creep who wanted the boy aborted?

      • Darren Ball

        Nowhere in the article does it say that the father wanted the pregnancy terminated; perhaps you have some background knowledge on this. Nevertheless, hypothetically, it is entirely appropriate, within the context of a relationship for the expectant father to sensitively make known his preference for an abortion. The expectant mother is, of course, fee to continue regardless. Suggesting an abortion does not mean that the father forfeits any subsequent rights that he would otherwise have had. Just because he preferred not to be a father doesn’t mean that he can’t be a loving father if he becomes one. All of this notwithstanding, no parent has the right to choose circumcision on behalf of their child unless there is a pressing medical need.

    • http://www.vanillarosetangents.blogspot.com/ MsVanillaRose

      Seriously? You think the father’s wish to traumatise his child for no reason is one that should be respected by courts?

      • Darren Ball

        It never ceases to amaze me how determined some bloggers are to misinterpret what other bloggers have written. It’s quite clear from my posting that I’m against elective infant circumcision,

        here: “On the one hand we have the circumcision, which is wrong”

        and here: “All of this notwithstanding, no parent has the right to choose circumcision on behalf of their child unless there is a pressing medical need.”

        So obviously I do not believe that the Court should uphold that, nor that it should even be legal at all. However, putting aside the circumcision for a moment, let’s imagine the dispute was over something else: the Court is acknowledging the father’s rights, which given that he has joint custody, is a good thing.

        • http://www.vanillarosetangents.blogspot.com/ MsVanillaRose

          Um, I don’t know if you’ve noticed. But this is a UK site. Here in the UK, the courts are meant to consider the best interests of the child. The “right” of courts to disregard the wishes of a child who is terrified of an unnecessary operation is not a good thing.

          • Darren Ball

            MsVanillaRose,

            Yes, I’ve noticed it’s a UK site. I’m British living in London and I’m no stranger to the site. Why this is relevant to a case heard in a US court is not clear to me.

            In every single one of my posts I have argued that elective circumcision of an infant is wrong, therefore the Court was wrong to uphold the father’s wishes. Having made that point (four times now), I proceeded to a second point.

            For whatever reason, you cannot get past the first point, despite the fact that we agree on it.

          • http://www.vanillarosetangents.blogspot.com/ MsVanillaRose

            My point is that this case involves a woman being bullied and a child being forced to undergo a frightening and utterly unnecessary medical procedure. To claim it as a triumph for fathers’ rights is insulting to the vast majority of fathers.

          • Darren Ball

            I would certainly not argue that it’s a “triumph for fathers’ rights”: that’s a huge leap from what I actually wrote. I would admit though to having some degree of cognitive dissonance over the matter (or as per my original comment: bitter-sweet).

            I completely disagree with the father and the Courts for upholding his supposed right to circumcise his son. I would have preferred very much that it had supported the mother over the father, and I hold this view very strongly. In ADDITION to that thought, I would also note that one of the problems fathers often complain about is that that the Courts tend to favour mothers’ wishes over fathers’. In this instance, the Courts have favoured the father, which might be significant in and of itself.

            Obviously one cannot read too much into any one case, but any evidence that the Courts are more inclined than previously to listen to fathers’ wishes – given the huge backdrop of fathers being alienated – would (ostensibly) be a good thing in and of itself (i.e. without reference to any particular contested issue).

            In summary: all else being equal, it’s good if the Courts are giving equal weight to the wishes of fathers. And it’s bad that Courts allow parents to circumcise their boys for no good medical reason.

          • http://www.vanillarosetangents.blogspot.com/ MsVanillaRose

            But the whole notion that courts tend to ignore fathers is based on MRA distortions and lies.

          • Darren Ball

            I don’t know about in the US, but in the UK there is a default assumption that the mother is the custodial parent with the father having to prove himself suitable. When you’re starting from that perspective, the whole system is rigged against the father from the start. MRA’s may well distort the facts further, I’m sure they do, but if you think that the family courts and gender-neutral then I really haven’t time to bring you up to speed.