22,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
This excerpt from the closing arguments describes the case.<blockquote>This is a simple caseMr. Niznick and Ms. Rovin, Schmidt were formerly Msmarried. They had a son. They divorced and the former Mrs. Schmidt, was required by Niznick received custody of the boy. The divorce decree agreement required her to confer consult with Mr. Niznik about Niznick regarding any non-emergency healthcare health care 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.</blockquote>
adjust DOC link
'''{{Construction SiteFULLPAGENAME}}'''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.
Ms. Schmidt remarried to a Jewish man.<ref name="bernaerts2014">{{REFdocument
|title=The Cologne Judgment: a curiosity or the start sign for condemning circumcision of male children without their consent as a human rights violation?
|url=https://repository.gchumanrights.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11825/161/Bernaerts_2012%EF%80%A213.pdf
|last=Bernaerts
|first=Jonathan Alfons J
|publisher=[https://ec.europa.eu/info/index_en European Commission]
|format=PDF
|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> 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
|last=Svoboda
|first=J. Steven
|accessdate=2020-05-03
}}</ref><ref name="appendixone">{{REFweb
|url=https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-1-4020-9167-4%2F1.pdf
|title=Respondent’s Closing Argument
|last=
|first=
|accessdate=2020-05-03
}}</ref>
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"/>
==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" /><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. [[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
|title=Judge rules 9-year-old need not get circumcised.
|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/reuters2006-10-25/
|last=
|first=
|coauthors=
|publisher=Reuters
|website=
|date=2006-10-25
|accessdate=2020-10-25
|quote=
}}</ref> <ref name="peres1024">{{REFnews
|title=Judge rules against boy’s circumcision
|url=http://www.cirp.org/news/chicagotribune2006-10-24/
|last=Peres
|first=Judy
|coauthors=
|publisher=Chicago Tribune
|website=
|date=2006-10-24
|accessdate=2020-05-06
|quote=
}}</ref>
==Afterword==
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.)]] (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.
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"/>
{{REF}}
[[Category:USA]]
[[Category:'... v. ...']]
[[Category:Litigation over circumcision]]