Heather Hironimus, the mother who has been resisting for over one year the order to hand out her child to circumcision, was arrested yesterday at the Domestic Violence shelter where she had been hiding for 81 days. Her son has been handed to the father, Dennis Nebus, who has been fighting to have him circumcised in spite of the doctor’s assessment that there is no medical need for this child to be circumcised.
A Federal case was recently filed by Heather’s attorney against the father of the child, Dennis Nebus, the judge, Jeffrey Dana Gillen, and Palm Beach County Sheriff Ric Bradshaw., arguing that Chase’s constitutional rights have been ignored and are being violated.
Update: Federal Judge Kenneth Marra has scheduled a hearing on all the motions for Monday, May 18th, at 1 pm
Let’s remember that Chase is the vulnerable party in this issue, and the one person who has not been heard at all in the legal proceedings so far.
Heather and Chase still need our help. Please donate to the legal fund at http://www.chasesguardians.org
A candle light vigil is planned for tonight. Details: https://www.facebook.com/events/1579051002367331/
A protest is planned for Monday: https://www.facebook.com/events/1604629103155556/
More information about these disheartening developments:
Our first post about this case, May 12th of last year: http://circwatch.org/judge-keep-your-hands-off-my-penis/
Dennis Nebus – the father of the child, says circumcision is “the normal thing to do”.
Judge Jeffrey Dana Gillen has played doctor through the legal proceedings, touting the benefits of circumcision, dismissing the risks, stating that it can be done with local anesthesia (all real doctors will disagree) dismissing Heather’s fears and Chase’s wishes, and ignoring the expert testimony that indicated that the circumcision is not medically necessary in this case and the doctor himself wouldn’t circumcise a son at that age.
The new lawyer for Dennis Nebus, Ira Marcus, in his response to the federal lawsuit, called Heather a fugitive and a mentally unstable person. He argues that Chase is “loser” to the state court case, and simultaneously argues that the state court found that the circumcision is in the child’s best interest (something that is not written in the ruling of the state court ruling). Both statements cannot be true at the same time. He also argues that the best interest of the child cannot be violated by the circumcision since all parties and the judge had his best interest in mind through the proceeding. There is little doubt that this lawyer has a cultural, if not religious, bias for circumcision.