15,577
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add text.
Mr. Niznick and Ms. Schmidt were formerly married. They had a son. They divorced and the former Mrs. Niznick received custody of the boy. The divorce agreement required her to consult with Mr. Niznick regarding any non-emergency health care services for the child.
Ms. Schmidt remarried. Her new husband thought that his step-son should be circumcised. The 31-year-old Slovakian-born mother, <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> 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
|url=https://www.arclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/Newsletter-5-2.pdf
|title=ARC Newsletter
Mr. Niznik retained renowned circumcision lawyer [[David J. Llewellyn]] of Atlanta, Georgia to represent him and they went to court 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="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 |title=Doctors differ on circumcision need |url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagotribune2006-06-13/ |last=Peres |first=Judy |coauthors= |publisher=Chicago Tribune |website= |date=2006-06-13 |accessdate=2020-05-04 |quote=}}</ref>
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. 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" />
Judge Kaplan ruled on Tuesday, October 24, 2006 that the 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 order to protect the boy from circumcision until he turns 18 and can decide for himself.<ref name="johnson2006" />
==Summation==