Mom in circumcision fight found, jailed

[Jesus Malverde]

After two months in hiding, Heather Hironimus, the mother at the center of a bitter circumcision battle, was booked Thursday into Broward County Jail, records show.

A Palm Beach County judge in March signed a warrant for Hironimus' arrest for contempt of court after she failed to appear in court with the boy so a circumcision could be performed. According to Broward county records, Hironimus was booked in into the jail just after 6 p.m. Thursday.

Hironimus has been fighting Dennis Nebus, the father of her child, for years over the circumcision of their son. After the couple split, they decided on a "parenting plan" in 2012 that allowed for Nebus to circumcise the boy.

A state court judge ruled in Nebus' favor in May 2014, and in March ordered Hironimus to hand the boy over.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/palm-beach/fl-heather-hironimus-booked-bso-20150514-story.html

[Bonobo]

1. Off the top of my head, I'd say this is just what DU needed! nt

[Art_from_Ark]

2. The procedure will be performed at Olive Garden,

with a lactating pit bull in attendance.

[Jesus Malverde]

3. thanks bonobo!

You tracking typhoon dolfin? I'm wondering if I should stock up on sochu here in Kyushu.

[Art_from_Ark]

4. Here's Dolfin for you

Otherwise known as "Typhoon No. 7"

http://typhoon.yahoo.co.jp/weather/jp/typhoon/

[Bonobo]

5. 7 already? My shoes just dried off from 6! nt

[Art_from_Ark]

6. Mine, too

I got soaked to the bone on Tuesday night.

[Bonobo]

8. This circumcision thread is rather boring. I think I need to get it started.

Hang on, Art...

[Jesus Malverde]

9. Thanks mang.

Off to see the SoftBank Hawks kick some lion booty.

Peace!

[Art_from_Ark]

14. I can never keep up with who owns the Hawks

I think at one time they were the Nankai Hawks, then they became the Daiei Hawks, and for a while they were just the Fukuoka Hawks maybe, and now they are Softbank's birds.

[kentauros]

29. My foresight calls for immediate circumspection.

[Jesus Malverde]

45. I see what you did there.

[snooper2]

43. I found this on google images just to put the icing on the cake

LOL

[PotatoChip]

7. I've always been under the impression that family courts are supposed to

look after the 'best interest of the child' as a first priority, with the wishes of either parent considered, but as a distant 2nd consideration.

So if this is correct, how is a medically unnecessary procedure in the best interest of an infant?

[TDale313]

10. Not an infant anymore, either.

The child is four now. I'm no expert, but to me it seems like a really bad age to do this procedure on.

[PotatoChip]

13. I missed that in my reading.

Yikes!

The poor kid... not that it's any less painful for an infant (IDK), but a 4 year old boy may very well never forget such an unpleasant medical experience.

Eta: At this point, it's too bad the court can't somehow reverse it's prior ruling, and let the boy choose for himself if he wants this done. --When he is old enough for such a decision.

[TDale313]

15. Or all the fighting surrounding it.

Which he may have a 4-year-old's understanding of. None of this seems to be in the kid's best interest.

[PotatoChip]

17. I agree. (nt)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. That's the part I think sucks.

Either do it at birth, or wait until they're legally an adult.

[SheilaT]

12. Worse yet, this isn't an infant,

but a four and a half year old.

[gollygee]

24. I also thought both parents had to consent for circumcision to be done

but maybe that's just in Michigan.

[RockaFowler]

31. She agreed to it - then changed her mind

I think that was why the judge sided with the Father

[Hepburn]

36. How could the court make the decision that this is or was medically unnecessary?

At the time the PARENTS made the agreement, there was no issue before the court which claimed this procedure was "medically unnecessary." Courts only have the ability to rule on issues which are before them. If the mother thought this should not be done, she should not have given up her authority to the court to order the procedure. Let's put this where it belongs: On the parent who later did not agreed and not on a court system which could not interfere in the joint decision of the parents made at an earlier date. This surgery is legal -- and it is an option to all parents of minor male children. The court could not over-rule their joint agreement. What if: Parents agree to NOT circumcise a male infant and the court over the agreement of the parents orders the surgery? Would this be OK? I do not see a difference in this scenario over what you propose -- a court simply on its own volition over-rule parents who have made a choice for a legal medical procedure.

[PotatoChip]

40. Mea Culpa.

I hadn't read this article carefully enough prior to posting.

I didn't notice the 'parenting plan' portion, -or- the age of the boy (until someone pointed the latter out earlier this morning). I had posted under the assumption that there had been an unresolved issue over the circumcision that the court had been asked to decide at the time of separation and/or divorce; with no prior mutually agreed contract in place.

Therefore, I don't disagree with you, knowing what I know now. People can't simply ignore their end of a legal agreement just because they changed their mind.

All of that said, it's too bad (for the child) that it has come to this.

[Hepburn]

47. Hi...

...no problem...

I have done the same thing...many more times than I care to admit!

[Bonobo]

11. Cirumcised is better!

-No, it isn't.
-Yes, it is!
-But they're ugly!
-No, you're mutilated and can't feel anything!
-Yes, I can!
-How do you know!
-Cause it feels good!
-But you can't compare and you're mutilated! Something precious was taken from you!
-You produce smegma and smell bad!
-Not if I wash right! It's easy!
-You can get skin inflammation and I protect myself and partners from venereal diseases!
-It is mutilation!
-Uncirumcised penises look like tapir penises...or worms or something.
-That's how they were designed. And it doesn't hurt women cause you slide in your own skin!
-Women like cut guys better!
etc.

[Art_from_Ark]

16. Wow-- just reading that makes me feel...

queasy.

[Jesus Malverde]

18. Well summarized

3-2 lions top of the fourth

[Bonobo]

20. Worst circumcision thread ever! What is going on here!

So much to argue about! So many people to condemn, belittle, marginalize, restrict, offend, dismiss, cajole, mock, condescend to, bitch at, whine at...

Is everyone asleep?

[Jesus Malverde]

22. Indeed they are.

Give them five hours to catch up. Since I came here mostly chatting with insomniacs on DU.

[dixiegrrrrl]

23. *Yawn*......ga' morning.....how come all the good threads are while I am asleep?

[Jesus Malverde]

28. You didn't miss much it was a 3-3 tie

Between the Hawks and lions.

Pretty much like most threads.

[backscatter712]

37. I think you covered all the arguments. Thread over! n/t

[pinboy3niner]

19. This thread leaves me in turmohel

[Jesus Malverde]

21. Lol

Good one!

[pinboy3niner]

27. Thanks

I knew someone would get it.

[n2doc]

25. ...

[drray23]

30. why the hell is it the court business ?

Circumcision in not medically necessary. Why is the court forcing her to go along with the wish of the father ? Since she is the mother, she has as much of a say (and I would argue more of a say since she is the one who gave birth to the kid) as the father in this matter. If they cant agree on it, them the kid should not be circumcised.

I view this as the court imposing a medical procedure on a kid and this is really worrysome of you recall the horrors of the 40's and 50's (forced lobotomies and such for people who were deemed mentally ill, look up Walter Freeman).

[WillowTree]

32. Because she already agreed to it.......

.......and memorialized that agreement in a formal parenting plan. The time for her to stick to her disagreement guns was before she signed off on that, not after.

[Lancero]

41. The agreement that she signed made that choice entirely the fathers actually.

The only allowance it allowed was that she could accompany the child for the procedure.

[snooper2]

44. How about they only do half?

[Sheldon Cooper]

33. Are they Jewish? I expect there's a mohel somewhere who would do this.

If not, I hope that the father has difficulty finding a surgeon who will do this procedure. The boy is definitely old enough to be frightened by the operation, and to remember it. I can't imagine what would possess a parent to inflict something like that on a child at his age.

I'm not strongly anti-circumcision as a general rule, but in this case I am.

[Hepburn]

34. The issue is a legal issue at this point, not a medical one

Having practiced family law for a very long time -- now retired -- I am very familiar with parenting agreements and other agreements which become court orders and/or judgments.

What in fact has taken place is that the agreement has basically been reduced to a stipulated judgment. BY AGREEING WITH THE OTHER PARENT, SHE GAVE THE COURT THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THIS ORDER/JUDGMENT. After doing this, one cannot simply state that he/she changed his/her mind. It does not work this way.

Once you give up the authority to the higher power, usually you are done because there is nothing to appeal -- there is no court error on the issue since the parties agreed to a term of an order or judgment which the court approved and had the jurisdiction to order and enforce. By agreeing on this term, the parties in essence took away the jurisdiction of the court to determine the issue then as well as later.

The mother should not have agreed to the term IF she had doubts at all at the time the parenting agreement was formulated.

To me, it is not an issue about circumcision or no circumcision -- it is about someone having the right to make what he/she now feels is a bad decision and later having to live with it. Choices at times can be bad choices -- she simply is too late on this issue.

JMHO

[mainer]

35. What if she learned certain facts later to change her mind?

She may not have been sufficiently educated in the risks when she signed the consent. We're not talking about real estate, but permanently scarring a 4 year old.

[Hepburn]

38. Too late

The surgery is legal. She had a decision to make at the time and should have researched it then. As I said, everyone has the right to make a bad decision. Once power is given up to the court, one has a very difficult time in changing the status.

Ours is a system of laws. One of the general rules is that issues (and objections) must be timely raised or they are waived. Mother waived her right to raise the issue at the time she agreed with father. If she now feels that her child will be permanently scarred by a medical procedure which is legal, the only person she has to blame is herself. Once she gives up the power to the court, it is pretty much over.

[Hepburn]

39. I read the complait which mother filed in Federal Court

To be blunt: It sucks. IMO, she is going to lose before the defendants have to answer. Bad move suing a judge when she gave him the authority to do what he did. She is only delaying the surgery and as a male ages, this become more painful and causes more trauma. Frankly, IMO, she is giving the father grounds for sole legal and physical custody of the child by the actions she is taking. She should have NEVER fled to avoid a court order. At this time, she has given herself the stigma of being a loose canyon and not obeying court orders.

[COLGATE4]

42. Yep. She is SOL. nt

[Nine]

46. Glad this is such a hilarious joke to everyone.

This makes me sick to my stomach. Even if you're in favor of circumcising children without their consent, I don't see how anyone can laugh about this. This is a tragic situation any way you look at it.