Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Schmidt v. Niznik

24 bytes added, 13:05, 7 May 2020
Improve references, Remove Construction Zone template.
{{Construction Site}}
'''{{FULLPAGENAME}}''', Cook County Illinois, NO. 00 D 18272 (2006) is a court case about the proposed circumcision of an eight-year-old boy in Chicago.
|date=2014
|accessdate=2020-05-04
}}</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="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="johnson2006">{{REFnews
|title=Judge takes father's side in circumcision feud
|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagosun-times2006-10-24/
|url=https://www.arclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/Newsletter-5-2.pdf
|title=ARC Newsletter
|last=Svoboda |first=J. Steven
|accessdate=2020-05-03
}}</ref><ref name="appendixone">{{REFweb
==Proceedings==
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
The decision of the trial judge was not appealed to a higher court so the decision of the trial court stands.<ref name="peres1024" />
[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] (2006) later commented that the ruling protected the boy's legal right to bodily integrity.<ref name="reuters2006" /> [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)|Doctors Opposing Circumcision]], 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.
Jonathan 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"/>
15,277
edits

Navigation menu