Court Denies Civil Rights of a Parent

Court Denies Civil Rights of a Parent


The problem with our court system is that judges interject their personal opinions into their decisions. Justice is supposed to be blind, only the facts and legal statutes are to be considered. When the court becomes involved with a parent’s choice regarding an elective medical procedure, it becomes a matter of civil rights vs. the legal system.

A woman in Florida will be incarcerated unless she signs a consent form to have her four-year-old son circumcised. Although Heather Hironimus originally agreed with the boy’s father, Dennis Nebus, to have the boy’s foreskin removed, she has changed her mind. Her decision resulted in a court battle with the father.

Hironimus subsequently fled with her son; Nebus has not seen the boy since February 20th. Judge Jeffrey Gillen labeled the mother as ‘reprehensible’ for placing the boy in the public spotlight. Gillen has placed Hironimus in contempt of court. If she does not surrender the boy by Tuesday, she will become the object of a police search. He has ordered her to sign the consent form or face time in jail.

The boy is in no physical danger if the circumcision is not performed; the surgery is not necessary. However, the judge has made his decision in favor of the father. He blames the mother for placing the case and the little boy before excessive scrutiny.

The Sun Sentinel has been covering the story. The newspaper became more involved and actually filed a motion to declare Judge Gillen’s order unconstitutional. The court declined saying the case did not fit within the parameters of a life or death situation or irreparable harm.

Protestors who call themselves ‘inactivists’ have become involved. They call the procedure barbaric. In the last four years a debate has risen regarding the necessity of removing the foreskin.

The Center for Disease Control claims that the benefits outweigh the risks. Circumcision reduces the risks of sexually transmitted diseases, urinary tract infections, and even penile cancer.

Although circumcision is commonplace in the United States, new research in Europe has resulted in doctors questioning the procedure.

The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine published a report stating that circumcised boys are more likely to develop autism spectrum disorder (ASD), before they are ten-years-old.

Research was conducted in Denmark. More than 340,000 boys born between 1994 and 2003 were studied until the age of nine. Circumcised boys contracted nearly 5,000 cases of ASD.

Responding to protests, the doctors who were scheduled to perform the surgery have removed themselves from the debate due to publicity and even threats to their lives.

Nebus told reporters that circumcision is just the ‘normal thing to do;’ but is it? More importantly should a court mandate medical treatment? The boy has expressed fear regarding the removal of his foreskin; the mother is siding with the boy, but the father is insisting that it be performed. This situation should never have been accepted by the court as a legal argument. This is a personal situation and the decision should be made within the family.

The mother lives in Boynton Beach; the father in Boca Raton. Living apart increases the difficulty of communication. If the legal system became involved, it should have been within the family court system; a Circuit Judge should never be allowed to insert his personal opinion into the discussion.

Commentary by James Turnage



ABC News


Photo Courtesy of Bruno Sanchez-Andrade

Flickr License


  1. The savagery of the United States legal system, and in particular, of so-called Judge Gillen, stuns me. It’s worthy only of a fascist state.

  2. By forcing the American man to become circumcised as an infant/child against his will, Judge Gillen is guilty of racketeering, practicing witchcraft, sexism, racism, in violation of all our basic human rights of ownership of our body’s sexually functioning exterior reproductive organs. Since infant/childhood circumcision can be used by the doctors or mothers as witchcraft, a sacrificial punishment on the sons of undesirable men to control the degrees of neurological sexual pleasure functions of their son’s reproductive organs, the chosen people for forcing circumcision on minors before puberty’s reproductive brain chemistry has matured, are essentially practicing a type of religious, ritual or routine population control on men as infants, without their or their parents knowledge. The short and long term physical and psychological dangers, harms and risks associated with this sexual terrorism, assault, molestation of minors, include cognitive dissonance, making the judges verdict psychopathic by nature. Circumcisers know how to use infant circumcision as a curse for witchcraft, religious and racial hygiene, ethnic cleansing, for choosing which circumcised boys will grow up sexually functional or dysfunctional depending on the amounts of nerve damage to the frenular delta nerves they cause.

  3. Circumcision should be decided, by the child, when he becomes an adult, as it is never too late, but the opposite is not true, as you cannot reverse the circumcision.

    Circumcision is not required, in this day and age of cleanest, except to fill the physician coffers.

    Where is the child advocate in this matter? No where to be found obviously. The court should appoint a public defender for the child.

  4. The headline of this article is wrong. The headline should read, “Court denies Civil Rights of a Child.”

    The right to physical integrity is a Ninth Amendment right and a Civil Right. The court is refusing to protect the civil right of the child to physical integrity.

    This is wrong.