UPDATE: May 18, 2015, 5:55 PM EDT
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — A judge expressed skepticism Monday that a long-running court battle over a Florida boy’s circumcision amounted to a constitutional issue worthy of being argued in federal court after being exhaustively litigated in state courts.
In the first hearing on the issue in federal court, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra questioned the attorney for the boy’s mother, Heather Hironimus, over the legality of proceeding with the case when a state judge had already ruled.
“Aren’t you really asking me to revisit and second-guess?” Marra said near the start of the 80-minute hearing in West Palm Beach.
Already a legal oddity for its subject matter, the long-running case between the boy’s estranged parents over the fate of his genitals got an extra dose of drama when Hironimus fled with the child nearly three months ago, going into hiding at a domestic violence shelter while a state judge warned she risked imprisonment for defying orders and refusing to appear in court. She was arrested Thursday and remains jailed.
Though Marra made no ruling in the case, he was often incredulous as Hironimus’ attorney, Thomas Hunker, contended the case could continue in federal court because it was filed on behalf of the boy, whereas the state case was simply between the parents. Hunker said the child’s interests were not fully and fairly represented in state court and that the boy had the right to make his own wishes known.
“So if the mother wants to have the child’s tonsils removed, you have to ask the child?” an obviously dubious Marra asked.
Hunker said because the procedure was not performed in the boy’s infancy, it had now grown to become a “life-and-death situation” involving the unnecessary risk of anesthesia. Though Marra quickly dismantled Hunker’s argument over the fairness of circumcising the boy at all when such a procedure would be barred as genital mutilation if he were a girl, the attorney sought to frame the case as having the ability to protect the constitutional right to bodily integrity.
“There has to be a limit to how far a parent can go to permanently alter a child’s body,” Hunker said.
Hironimus, 31, and the boy’s father, Dennis Nebus, have been warring since her pregnancy. They were never married but share custody of their child, and in a parenting agreement filed in court, the two agreed to the boy’s circumcision. The mother later changed her mind, giving way to the long legal battle. Circuit and appellate judges have sided with the father, but potential surgeons have backed out after failing to get the mother’s consent and becoming the target of protesters.
The federal case, contending the boy’s civil rights were being infringed upon, was filed while Hironimus was missing and her legal options evaporating.
Nebus’ attorney, Ira Marcus, said Hunker had not proven any constitutional violation and that Marra had no jurisdiction to prevent the circumcision from proceeding. He said the boy remained in the care of Nebus and that the surgery was not imminently scheduled. Marcus agreed to give Marra 10 days’ notice if he was proceeding with an appointment but rejected Hunker’s argument that the boy had a say in the matter.
“Minor children, up until the age of majority, do not make elective medical decisions,” he said. “Parents make those decisions.”
The case has stirred the attention of so-called “intactivists” who reject circumcision as barbaric, and a small group of protesters gathered outside the courthouse with signs including “Free Heather” and “Keep Foreskin and State Separate.” One of the advocates, Georganne Chapin, who leads the group Intact America, said the state court had “utterly disregarded the rights and wellbeing of the child.”
“It is a sad day in America when a mother is jailed for trying to protect her young son from another adult who is intent on cutting off a normal, healthy part of the boy’s genitals,” she said.
___
Follow Matt Sedensky on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sedensky
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
I am missing something I’m sure. What court is in a position to order the woman to consent to an elective procedure? Why is she ordered to a court in the first place?
New Rule for TPM: If you’re going to talk about cutting penises, you SHALL provide the full story such that we can understand what’s going on. I know you’re just in the business of blurbing us, but come on…that article leaves everything entirely unexplained. Is the state really trying to order a circumcision by jailing a mother? Are there health reasons in this particular situation? What the fuck is going on? Does daddy want him cut and mommy doesn’t, but daddy has legal custody? You tell us nothing other than “welp, looks like the court now thinks it can order dick surgeries at whim.” This just seems like complete crazy talk from the one or two facts actually provided here and the absolute lack of any context.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/battle-florida-boys-circumcision-enters-federal-court-31115790
Frankly, I feel for her and have my own misgivings about the procedure…not to mention the 4 year old kid who gets to experience the wonders of dick pain…but she signed a contract, so it seems fairly open and shut.
The question is whether a parent can sign and be held to a contract for a non-medical procedure for a third party.
There’s no medical necessity for the operation. And a 4 years of age, the child is going to know what’s happening, and probably be terrified.
If the mother signed a contract to put in a nose-ring on the boy, would that too be enforceable? Until what age?
I rather doubt the “open and shut” part. Contracts are not unbreakable, and one or the other party is allowed to change his/her/its mind, but usually there will be some penalty to pay for doing so. But state courts have apparently already ruled in the father’s favor. The wrinkle, though, is that doctors have been reluctant to proceed without the mother’s consent, and they are also wary of anti-circumcision protesters.
It appears that she was jailed not because she refused to give her consent, as the TPM article seems to say, but because she had refused to show up in court at all and went into hiding with the child. She was jailed for contempt of court for defying the orders of the state courts.