Difference between revisions of "Schmidt v. Niznik"
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (Add text.) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) m (typo) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
This is a simple case. Ms. Rovin, formerly Ms. Schmidt, was required by the divorce decree to confer with Mr. Niznik about any non-emergency healthcare services for the Child. (Parenting Agreement, Paragraph B, attached to the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage, Exhibit “B” to Respondent’s Emergency Verified Petition herein). She failed to do so, both in 2005 and in 2006. Instead she secretly scheduled an unnecessary circumcision of the Child, even though the child had never been properly diagnosed and treated for alleged “balanitis,” or inflammation of the glans penis. Mr. Niznik discovered this plan, discussed the facts about circumcision with his son (who upon being informed of the truth decided he did not want to be circumcised), and forbade the circumcision. He then brought this action to obtain the Court’s aid in prohibiting the circumcision and to have Ms. Rovin held in contempt for failing to confer with him. The undisputed facts support his requests, particularly since the undisputed facts at the evidentiary hearing were (1) that the Child at present has an entirely normal, disease free penis, (2) that circumcision is physically damaging, (3) that circumcision at this age may be psychologically damaging, (4) that circumcision at the Child’s age carries with it the risks inherent in the use of general anesthesia, including death, (5) that circumcision carries with it the risk of surgical mishap, bleeding, and infection, with possible disastrous consequences, (6) that | This is a simple case. Ms. Rovin, formerly Ms. Schmidt, was required by the divorce decree to confer with Mr. Niznik about any non-emergency healthcare services for the Child. (Parenting Agreement, Paragraph B, attached to the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage, Exhibit “B” to Respondent’s Emergency Verified Petition herein). She failed to do so, both in 2005 and in 2006. Instead she secretly scheduled an unnecessary circumcision of the Child, even though the child had never been properly diagnosed and treated for alleged “balanitis,” or inflammation of the glans penis. Mr. Niznik discovered this plan, discussed the facts about circumcision with his son (who upon being informed of the truth decided he did not want to be circumcised), and forbade the circumcision. He then brought this action to obtain the Court’s aid in prohibiting the circumcision and to have Ms. Rovin held in contempt for failing to confer with him. The undisputed facts support his requests, particularly since the undisputed facts at the evidentiary hearing were (1) that the Child at present has an entirely normal, disease free penis, (2) that circumcision is physically damaging, (3) that circumcision at this age may be psychologically damaging, (4) that circumcision at the Child’s age carries with it the risks inherent in the use of general anesthesia, including death, (5) that circumcision carries with it the risk of surgical mishap, bleeding, and infection, with possible disastrous consequences, (6) that | ||
| − | 258 Appendix Abalanitis is almost always 100% curable by the application of betamethasone cream, which has never been prescribed for the Child, and (7) that balanitis can occur in a circumcised male | + | 258 Appendix Abalanitis is almost always 100% curable by the application of betamethasone cream, which has never been prescribed for the Child, and (7) that balanitis can occur in a circumcised male. |
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
{{REF}} | {{REF}} | ||
Revision as of 19:20, 2 May 2020
Construction Site
This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.
Schmidt vs. Niznik, Cook County Illinois, NO. 00 D 18272 (2006) is a court case about the proposed circumcision of an eight-year-old boy in Chicago.
This excerpt from the closing arguments describes the case.
This is a simple case. Ms. Rovin, formerly Ms. Schmidt, was required by the divorce decree to confer with Mr. Niznik about any non-emergency healthcare services for the Child. (Parenting Agreement, Paragraph B, attached to the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage, Exhibit “B” to Respondent’s Emergency Verified Petition herein). She failed to do so, both in 2005 and in 2006. Instead she secretly scheduled an unnecessary circumcision of the Child, even though the child had never been properly diagnosed and treated for alleged “balanitis,” or inflammation of the glans penis. Mr. Niznik discovered this plan, discussed the facts about circumcision with his son (who upon being informed of the truth decided he did not want to be circumcised), and forbade the circumcision. He then brought this action to obtain the Court’s aid in prohibiting the circumcision and to have Ms. Rovin held in contempt for failing to confer with him. The undisputed facts support his requests, particularly since the undisputed facts at the evidentiary hearing were (1) that the Child at present has an entirely normal, disease free penis, (2) that circumcision is physically damaging, (3) that circumcision at this age may be psychologically damaging, (4) that circumcision at the Child’s age carries with it the risks inherent in the use of general anesthesia, including death, (5) that circumcision carries with it the risk of surgical mishap, bleeding, and infection, with possible disastrous consequences, (6) that 258 Appendix Abalanitis is almost always 100% curable by the application of betamethasone cream, which has never been prescribed for the Child, and (7) that balanitis can occur in a circumcised male.
References