According to Palm Beach Post
Heather Hironimus and her 4-year-old son have sought refuge at a domestic violence shelter in an undisclosed location, her attorney said. She fears for her son’s psychological well-being and wants an attorney appointed to represent him before he can have the operation the child’s father is pushing him to have, attorney Thomas Hunker said.
Judge Jeffrey Gillen cut Hunker off, calling Hironimus’s fears and concerns irrelevant at this point.
Truth is, if you remember the beginning of the case, Judge Gillen has always considered Heather’s fears irrelevant. Let’s take a look at the ruling from last year, dated March 25th.
In this ruling it was said that Heather “asserted, in essence, that circumcision was not medically necessary and she did not want to have the parties’ son undergo requisite general anesthesia for fear of death. She expressed no other reason for now objecting to the procedure to which she’d already agreed in the parenting plan”
Following these paragraphs, there are some partially false and/or irrelevant arguments from the pediatrician acting as expert witness, Charles Flack, following which “the Court finds that there is no reason why the parties should not be held to the terms of their Agreed Parenting Plan”.
So, almost a year ago, Heather’s fears were summarily dismissed without response. And today, 350 days afterwards, the judge now says that her fears and concerns are “irrelevant at this point”.
Were they relevant a year ago Judge Gillen?
Is the life, well being and best interest of 4 year old Chase*, “irrelevant at this point”, Judge Gillen?
Did you forget that at the center of this controversy you don’t have a piece of property, nor a head of livestock, but a very alive and aware human being, Judge Gillen?
Would Judge Gillen say that no children have died during a circumcision due to the use of general anesthesia? It happened in Brooklyn just 4 years ago. Jamaal Coleson, 2 years old, died after a circumcision due to the improper use of anesthesia.
Circumcision can have negative psychological effects, and this is more noticeable in those circumcised as children or adolescents, as they can perceive the procedure as abuse, punishment, and loss of control over their own bodies. We also recommend reading the 1999 Preliminary Survey of men circumcised in infancy or childhood – originally published in the British Journal of Urology BJU.
Denial of harm caused by circumcision is a clear display of cultural bias for the procedure. Judge Gillen needs to reconsider his position on this topic.
* We will not stop using Chase’s name, as people need to remember that we are not talking about property but about a real human being whose human rights, preferences, body and health are at stake in the hands of Judge Gillen.