Judge Rules For Father: 9 Year Old Boy Won't Be Circumcised

[matcom]

:popcorn:

<snip>

A 9-year-old suburban boy will not be circumcised as his mother wishes, a judge ruled Tuesday -- a victory for the child's father, who called the procedure "not necessary.''
Cook County Circuit Judge Jordan Kaplan said he was unconvinced by experts for the mother who maintained that circumcision would help stem the boy's recurring irritation and infections.

"My child is the most important thing to me. But it's absolutely not necessary,'' said the father, a 50-year-old apartment manager from Arlington Heights.

The mother, a Northbrook homemaker who has remarried, was disappointed with the ruling, said her attorney, Gail O'Connor.

"She was trying to do what she felt best for her child. It was about the child's health,'' said O'Connor.

Kaplan noted that the boy did not want to be circumcised and that the child's stepfather described the boy as "anxious" over the procedure, which involves removal of foreskin from the penis. The father admitted he had shown the boy graphic pictures of a circumcision.

The closely watched case put a spotlight on a procedure which, for the last 10 years in the United States, has been dropping in popularity. In 2003, about 56 percent of American boys were circumcised, down from 64.7 percent in 1980, according to the National Center for Health Statistics.

After the boy's parents split in 2003, the mother was awarded sole custody but the divorce settlement provided that any "extraordinary" health care procedure required approval of the father.

Two weeks before the boy was to be circumcised, the child told his father of the impending operation. The father objected and filed suit after being unable to talk the mother out of the plan.

The father, an immigrant from Poland -- where circumcision is less prevalent than in the United States -- said he is not circumcised and that it is not part of his family's tradition.

The father had a right to object and "the evidence did not establish that circumcision was medically necessary at the present time,'' the judge ruled.

The American Academy of Pediatrics says circumcision does "have some potential medical benefits'' but they "are not compelling enough" to label it as a medically necessary. Some researchers have argued that circumcision helps protect against urinary tract infection, HIV infection and penile cancer.

The case revealed some hard feelings between the couple, whom the Sun-Times is not naming in order to protect the boy's anonymity.

A lawyer for the father suggested the mother wanted her son circumcised so that he would look more like her new husband.

Her lawyers pointed to court records that show the boy's father has failed to provide proper financial support for the boy in the past.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/109712,CST-NWS-circum25.article

[LostinVA]

1. I think it's okay the Dad showed the boy photos

It's a medical procedure, and a patient has a right to know what they're getting into. A nine-year-old is old enough to know if he wants a procedure that's basically cosmetic surgery (since he isn't Jewish).

[mainegreen]

2. Dammit, circumcision is not medically necessary!

Good for the dad. The mom is totally off her rocker for wanting to circumcise a 9 year old boy.
:grr:

[redqueen]

14. Amen.

Obsession with image really bothers me.

[Divameow77]

3. If she wanted to have him circumcised

then it should have been done when he was a newborn, or he can make that decision for himself when he is older.

Doing it at 9 years old is just crazy

[eyesroll]

4. I've never, ever understood the "penis must look like daddy's" idea.

If Daddy is bald, the kid doesn't shave his head.
If Daddy is an amputee, the kid doesn't lose an arm.
If Daddy has a tattoo or a piercing or his frat letters branded into his arm, the kid doesn't get body modifications too.

But apparently the penis must match. :shrug:

[LeftyMom]

7. I don't get it either

Just how often do they whip 'em out to compare? If looking like the parent of the same gender is so important should I have got a boob job, matching tatoos and that surgery that lengthens legs to look more like my Mom?

[Bunny]

5. Doesn't it seem like there should be some pretty straightforward

medical testimony as to whether this is really necessary? I mean, if it's medically needed due to constant infections, or a foreskin that can't be fully retracted (or whatever reason the mother stated), wouldn't that be pretty easy to determine from a medical standpoint?

I have no real strong opinion about newborn circumcision, but it seems to me that nine-years old is pretty old to get this done unless there is an absolute medical need. When he's an adult, he can make up his own mind.

[redqueen]

15. The AMA revised their opinion - not necessary. n/t

[Bunny]

16. Well, I thought the AMA decided that routine circumcision of newborns

was unnecessary. My post referred to times when there *could* be a legitimate medical need, such as recurring infections or inability to fully retract the foreskin.

[Pithlet]

6. I hope she appeals and is successful.

If the boy has recurrent infections and doctors have rules a circumcision medically necessary, then this father was an ass for stepping in and stopping it. I don't think circumcisions are medically necessary for most boys, but for some it is. I think the father is either using his poor kid as a pawn to get back at his ex, or is so rabidly anti-circumcision that it is clouding his judgment. The fact that he showed his kid those pics makes me think it's probably the latter. Poor kid.

[MissMillie]

8. Did the article say that the boy had recurring infections?

I missed that.

My 19 year old son was not circumcized. He has NEVER had an infection.

[Divameow77]

9. It said it

But I guess the judge didn't believe it

"Judge Jordan Kaplan said he was unconvinced by experts for the mother who maintained that circumcision would help stem the boy's recurring irritation and infections."

[LostinVA]

10. The mother SAYS he has reoccurring infections

I haven't read of any medical testimony/records confirming this.

[Pithlet]

11. That was the reason the mother gave.

If it's true and has been documented by health professionals, then I think the judge ruled in error. If there are indeed documented medical issues, then I think the judge ruled in error, and I hope the mother has legal recourse. The father sounds like a jerk, though. I think a parent can help guide a child to make medical decisions without resorting to graphic propaganda.

Edited for clarification.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

12. Perhaps the boy could wash better.

[Pithlet]

13. Perhaps he could.

But, even then, I don't think the proper thing to do would be to let him suffer from infections. I mean, if that is the issue, and he's unwilling or incapable of washing himself properly, and circumcision would stop them, then I think it's cruel to withhold that treatment.