Schmidt v. Niznik

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.

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 mother, 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.

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.

Mr. Niznik retained renowned circumcision lawyer David J. Llewellyn of Atlanta, Georgia to represent him and they went to court in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Mr. Llewellyn was supported by local counsel Lake, Toback & D'Arco. Tte 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 done.

Drs. 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.

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.

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 A balanitis 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.