Changes

|first=Jonothan Jonathan Alfons J

}}</ref> Her new husband thought that his step-son should be [[circumcised ]] so that he would match his circumcised step-brother. The 31-year-old Slovakian-born mother,<ref name="johnson2006peres0217">{{REFnews |title=Judge takes father's side in circumcision feudCircumcision decision delayed by court |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagosunchicagotribune2006-times200602-10-2417/ |last=JohnsonPeres |first=CarlaJudy

|publisher=Chicago Sun-TimesTribune

|date=2006-1002-2417 |accessdate=2020-055-0407

}}</ref> now known as Mrs. Rovin, secretly scheduled a non-therapeutic [[circumcision ]] for her son to please her new husband in violation of the divorce decree.<ref name="arcnews2006">{{REFweb

|last=Svoboda |first=J. Steven

Mr. Niznick only found out about the circumcision a few days before it was to occur in February 2006 when his son told him during a scheduled visitation that he was to have surgery on his [[penis]].<ref name="appendixone"/>

Mr. Niznik retained renowned circumcision lawyer [[David J. Llewellyn]] of Atlanta, Georgia to represent him and they filed suit in the [http://www.cookcountycourt.org/ Circuit Court of Cook County], Illinois. Mr. Llewellyn was supported by local counsel Lake, Toback & D'Arco. The Polish-born father, a 49-year-old building manager from Arlington Heights, immediately asked Judge Jordan Kaplan to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the [[circumcision ]] of his son, pending a trial, which was granted.<ref name="peres0217">{{REFnews |title=Circumcision decision delayed by court |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagotribune2006-02-17/ |last=Peres |first=Judy |coauthors= |publisher=Chicago Tribune |website= |date=2006-02-17 |accessdate=2020-5-07 |quote=}}</ref><ref name="arcnews2006" />

Drs. [[Robert S. Van Howe| Van Howe]] and Gibbon served as expert witnesses for the father, while Drs. Hatch and Goldstein served as expert witnesses for the mother, a 31-year-old homemaker from Northbrook, represented by [http://tracyrizzo.com/ Tracy Rizzo].<ref name="arcnews2006" /> <ref name="appendixone" /> <ref name="peres2006">{{REFnews

She claimed that the boy had [[balanitis]] which she alleged would make his [[circumcision]] a necessary medical treatment, however it was shown that the boy had been swimming in heavily clorinated swimming pools, which caused the irritation. The boy did not have balanitis, so he did not need a circumcision. Even if he did have balanitis, there is more conservative treatment available than radical, destructive circumcision, it was shown.<ref name="appendixone" />

Dr. [[Robert S. Van Howe |Van Howe]] testified the boy the boy had a "normal, non-diseased [[foreskin]]" and Dr. Hatch also affirmed the boy had a "normal non-diseased foreskin".<ref name="appendixone" />

It was brought out that circumcision risks serious psychological damage.<ref name="appendixone" />

Judge Kaplan ruled on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 that the now nine-year-old boy should not be [[circumcised]]. In his ruling, he described circumcision as "''an extraordinary medical procedure as it relates to a nine-year-old child''". He issued an injunction to block the procedure and to protect the boy from [[circumcision ]] until he turns 18 and can decide for himself.<ref name="johnson2006" >{{REFnews |title=Judge takes father's side in circumcision feud |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagosun-times2006-10-24/ |last=Johnson |first=Carla |coauthors= |publisher=Chicago Sun-Times |website= |date=2006-10-24 |accessdate=2020-05-04 |quote=}}</ref><ref name="reuters2006">{{REFnews

[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision(D.O.C.)]] (2006) commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision(D.O.C.)]], later cited this case as a precedent in an [https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf| ''amicus curiae'' brief] filed with the Oregon Supreme Count in the case of ''[[Boldt v. Boldt]]'' in 2007. Jonathon Bernaerts (2014) commented on this case on page 83 of his thesis. ''Schmidt v. Niznik'' (2006) is believed to be the first American legal case to recognize the right of a male child to genital autonomy — the right to decide for one's self about surgical operations and reconfiguration of one's genital organs.<ref name="bernaerts2014" />

[[Category:USALitigation over circumcision]]