The Florida mother who battled for years against her child’s father over the boy’s circumcision ,ended on Friday when she agreed to the procedure in exchange for her release from jail.
Following a week in custody for contempt and an initial hearing in which she was ordered to remain jailed, the court reconvened and a sobbing Heather Hironimus who was shackled, signed paperwork giving approval for the surgery.
The Mail Online report: The shift, though under duress, threatened the hero status given to Hironimus by a bubbling movement of anti-circumcision advocates who have followed the case’s every turn.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
You can unsubscribe any time. By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use
She remained jailed on Friday afternoon, but her release was likely later in the day.
Attorneys for both Hironimus and the boy’s father, Dennis Nebus, declined to comment, citing an ongoing gag order in the case.
Georganne Chapin, executive director of Intact America, which advocates against circumcision, said Hironimus had been ‘bullied’ into signing, calling it the ‘saddest commentary on the court’.
‘I don’t know what’s in his head,’ she said of Judge Jeffrey Gillen, who presided over the case. ‘I don’t know how he can sleep at night.’
Hironimus and Nebus had initially agreed to the circumcision in a parenting agreement filed in court, but the mother later changed her mind.
Circuit and appellate judges sided with the father, but potential surgeons backed out after failing to get the mother’s consent and becoming the target of protesters.
Hironimus went missing with the boy in February, ignoring warnings from Gillen to be in court and allow the circumcision to proceed.
She remained missing until her arrest last week, staying in a domestic violence shelter. With her legal options dwindling, she filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of her son, looking for a solution outside state court.
But her attorney abruptly withdrew that case on Wednesday, two days after its first hearing, when a judge expressed open skepticism of its merits.
Upon arriving in courton Friday, chained at the wrists and ankles and wearing a navy blue jail jumpsuit, Hironimus quietly invoked her Fifth Amendment rights when asked whether she had signed the consent agreement.
Gillen said Hironimus would be jailed indefinitely unless she did.
Her mother, Mary Hironimus, fought back tears but said her daughter was right to fight for her son.
‘Of course it’s worth it,’ she said, ‘any mother would do anything for her child.’
Hironimus still faces a criminal charge of interfering with child custody. Gillen approved a motion by Nebus’ attorney, May Cain, to temporarily give the father sole decision-making over matters including his son’s health and to travel out of state, if needed, to have the circumcision performed. Cain said her client had been receiving death threats and warnings his son would be kidnapped.
Niamh Harris
It is wrong to force a medical procedure on a child. Especially when there is no reason it’s needed! Just the father’s vanity. It’s completely asinine!
The boy, at nine years of age, is a thinking and self-aware human being. Does *he* wish to be circumcised????
He’s almost 5 years old and has stated that he does not want the operation. However the judge refused to allow the boy his own councillor to represent him in the court proceedings.
I don’t think it had anything to do with whether he or she ir anyone wanted it done. The story states that the mother signed an agreement to allow it but then changed her mind.
Therein lies the issue. She signed an agreement. A agreement that was a legal binding document. The father wanted it done as did the mother BUT she changed her mind.
The case is really not about whether the child should it should not have the circumcision or whether or not he wants it or whether or not the mother wants it.
The case is only about the fact that the father AND the mother signed a legal binding agreement.
The court of law is doing its job – holding rack person who signed the document accountable for what they legally agreed to.
If she would not have signed an agreement or even verbally made an agreement – this story would have gone in a different direction.
Ultimately it comes down to contract law. They made an agreement & at least one party plans to uphold thier part of that agreement. When the other party does not want to uphold thirst part of the agreement, then they have broken thier promise & the courts job is to see that both parties uphold their promise to the agreement. That is all, folks.
Actually the agreement she signed stated that the father would have the son circumcised *in a timely manner*.
Years later is not a timely manner.
A “contract” between two people to MUTILATE a third party is both invalid and immoral. She was moral and just to change her mind.
Infant male circumcision is the most widespread violation of the Non Aggression Principle in the USA.
How can it be consensual when forced?
This is utterfly appaling. America, you should be throughly ashamed of yourselves for allowing a legal system to put a mother in prison for protecting the rights of her child.
You condem the Middle East for acts such as this, yet turn a blind eye to the right wing misogyny inherent in your own legal system.