Oh, I’ve seen parents fight over much more minor issues, and the court has to decide. It is NOT always the question of what is in the best interest of the child, because sometimes it really doesn’t matter at all. The judge I clerked for decided things like what the child would eat on Christmas and at what time, what kind of outfit the child would wear, how the child’s hair would be cut (or which parent would get to decide), where the child would go to school, to which doctor. The judge didn’t care, the child didn’t care. Society didn’t care. One of the biggest arguments we say over and over was a request for the midweek visitation to be changed from Wed to Tues because the child needed/wanted to go to band/girl scouts/rocket building. His standard answer was that if the parties could agree, he was fine with it, but if they couldn’t agree, visitation was on Wednesdays. Was that always in the best interest of the child? No, it was probably a good idea to go to scouts or band, but the judge just didn’t have time to decide everything.
Judges of course are called on to make medical decisions that really do matter but on which the parents and former spouses can’t. We had one case where an 8th grader was anorexic (all agreed on that). Father wanted the child treated at a residential treatment center out of state. Mother wanted her treated at a local program. Divorce decree said they would jointly make medical decisions, but they couldn’t agree. Both had good reasons for what they wanted.
I don’t know what evidence the mother presented against the circ, but the judge can only go on what is before him. If father presented evidence that a doctor thought this was a necessary procedure and the mother presented nothing or just ‘I changed my mind’, then the judge usually will go by what the parents agreed to and what medical experts say is necessary. It’s pretty hard to get ‘studies’ on the negatives of circumcision into the record without an expert witness, and most doctors don’t object to circumcision.
Oh, I’ve seen parents fight over much more minor issues, and the court has to decide. It is NOT always the question of what is in the best interest of the child, because sometimes it really doesn’t matter at all. The judge I clerked for decided things like what the child would eat on Christmas and at what time, what kind of outfit the child would wear, how the child’s hair would be cut (or which parent would get to decide), where the child would go to school, to which doctor. The judge didn’t care, the child didn’t care. Society didn’t care. One of the biggest arguments we say over and over was a request for the midweek visitation to be changed from Wed to Tues because the child needed/wanted to go to band/girl scouts/rocket building. His standard answer was that if the parties could agree, he was fine with it, but if they couldn’t agree, visitation was on Wednesdays. Was that always in the best interest of the child? No, it was probably a good idea to go to scouts or band, but the judge just didn’t have time to decide everything.
Judges of course are called on to make medical decisions that really do matter but on which the parents and former spouses can’t. We had one case where an 8th grader was anorexic (all agreed on that). Father wanted the child treated at a residential treatment center out of state. Mother wanted her treated at a local program. Divorce decree said they would jointly make medical decisions, but they couldn’t agree. Both had good reasons for what they wanted.
I don’t know what evidence the mother presented against the circ, but the judge can only go on what is before him. If father presented evidence that a doctor thought this was a necessary procedure and the mother presented nothing or just ‘I changed my mind’, then the judge usually will go by what the parents agreed to and what medical experts say is necessary. It’s pretty hard to get ‘studies’ on the negatives of circumcision into the record without an expert witness, and most doctors don’t object to circumcision.
I know that. I’ve posted information to that effect. But boys typically can retract their foreskin by age 5, not age 3. And a urologist apparently said he didn’t have phimosis, the condition in question, although I gather he supports circumcision on general principles. Unsurprisingly, since he would according to reports likely be the person to do it.
So the question remains, since there does not appear to be an actual medical reason to do it, why is the father so eager to subject his 4 yr old to an unnecessary procedure?
Judges should find for what is in the best interest of the child but the decisions can be really complicated and they don’t always come out right. One judge ordered a man to continue paying child support even though the parents had divorced and the man found out that the woman had lied about the child being his. Seems horrible but the daughter preferred her Dad and eventually ended up living with him and cutting ties with her biological parents.
In another case (Bode Miller), a judge found that a pregnant woman had illegally crossed state lines and awarded custody of the child to the father. Before it was even born! As you can imagine, that one went back to court.
I don’t think this could be in the best interests of the child, considering his age, unless there is a compelling and clearly indicated medical reason, and there just isn’t.
greenwitch, it is the law in Colorado that the husband of the mother at the time of birth is presumed to be the father. If that presumption isn’t challenged within 5 years, then it stands, so your first example if just of a judge following the law (if there was a statute in that state, or if case law). Why shouldn’t a child be entitle to ‘know’ that the father on his birth certificate is the legal father? No different than if the child was adopted. It makes social and, in the case you cited, legal sense. Not biologically related but parent/child none the less. I had a client that had this exact situation, where he found out that he was not the bio father when the child was 7. Of course he was furious - at his ex-wife, not at the child. I calmed him down and asked if he did not want to be a father to this child. He did, he just didn’t want to pay child support. When he looked at it as if there had been an adoption, he was fine.
The Bode Miller case was not about the mother leaving, but about which state had jurisdiction over the custody matter. Even though the mother moved, the state were the baby had been conceived and where the parents lived retained jurisdiction, just as it would have if they’d been married, divorced, and one party left the jurisdiction.
And as far are the case we are discussing, you said, “I don’t think this could be in the best interests of the child, considering his age, unless there is a compelling and clearly indicated medical reason, and there just isn’t.” Um, do you know what evidence was presented? Were you there? The mother saying there isn’t any medical reason if the father has presented a medical opinion that there is doesn’t work. Her opinion and feelings versus a medical opinion. If that medical opinion is so bad, she should have presented another medical opinion to the court. The judge can only consider admitted evidence, not lay opinions or what’s common in the rest of the world or even that people on CC don’t see it as necessary. You’d have to read the transcripts and see what evidence was ADMITTED into evidence, not just what was said by the mother. She could, for example, show up with a Time Magazine article saying circumcision isn’t necessary, but that can’t be admitted as evidence without the author of the article, the author of the study, the scientific data being presented.
They have the right to change their mind, but once it becomes a legal contract they need to follow legal rules, and she didn’t.
No, but (1) lots of kids that age still get circumcised without it being especially traumatic, and (2) the mom doesn’t get to run out the clock as a legal tactic, either.
Is that a question we as bystanders get to ask? If he feels it is in his child’s best interest, and the medical and legal communities agree that he has the right to make that decision (i.e., it does not constitute “unreasonable” harm), then why do we get to question his motives? He has satisfied doctors and he has satisfied the court - isn’t that enough?
And really, is the harm of circumcision even at this point equal to being kidnapped (yes, that is what happened!) and being made the subject of a national manhunt? I can’t imagine that circumcised or not he is going to have an easy life after this.
Do 3 and 4 year olds understand the concept of kidnapping? At age 3 or 4, most children seem content just to be close to mommy, no matter where mommy is. Mommy, in this case, was the custodial parent.
I’d be willing to bet, however, that most 3 & 4 year olds would be unhappy having a knife taken to their parts.
I think it needs to be pointed out that the issue isn’t whether, in the abstract, there is a medical reason for this particular procedure. The issue is whether evidence was presented to the judge that the procedure was beneficial (or not harmful), and whether there was contrary evidence. I agree (as a legal realist) that absconding with the child would make it much harder for the mother to prevail in this argument.
@twoinanddone - Do I know the specific legal and medical details of this case? No, I do not. Do you? No, you do not either. So why are you allowed to conclude something that is mainly based on opinion and no one else is? Maybe there was a compelling medical reason. All that we know is that a pediatrician thought his foreskin might be too tight. I’m basing my opinion on that, not on any other possible unrevealed reasons. You may be right that there was something else revealed in court, but at this point, that is only your assumption.
@greenwitch, I am saying that if the ONLY evidence was from the pediatrician then that was what the court had to go on, and is probably enough to justify the order to have the procedure. There are parents in front of the judge with different opinions on what medical action to take. Father says we agreed to this, I want to stand by the agreement, AND I have a doctor (or 2) saying it will help. Mother says I changed my mind and I don’t want to stand by my agreement. If she presented no other admitted evidence, what is the judge supposed to do? Judge can’t consider evidence or studies or general opinions not before him.
It’s not just my opinion on whether circumcision is right or not, it’s what evidence was presented. (Personally, I don’t agree with the father, but legally I think he has the right to have the agreement enforced). We are all relying on the news reports (was probably a closed hearing), but I’ve not read anything that said the Mother presented any medical evidence at all, and I’d expect that if she had, it would have been in the news reports. “Dr. X testified that this will cause irreparable harm to the child” or “Dr. Z presented 20 pages of studies that a circ will not fix Child’s problems.” I don’t see that anywhere.
The kid may not understand the concept of kidnapping but I bet he understands being taken away from his home everyone he knew and living with his mother in a strange place full of scared and hurt women and children while his mother told him all about the monster who wanted to cut off his willy!
I’d be willing to bet that mist 3 & 4 year olds would be unhappy with a whole host of things, some of which are not only good for them but outright necessities of life. While it would make it a lot easier if making your child happy was the same as taking good care of them and doing what you thought was best for them, it isn’t.
I presumed that there was, but I was wrong - while her exact location was a secret it was known that she remained in the area. Regardless, bouncing through this maze of doctors and lawyers can’t be good for the kid.
We also know that he was subsequently examined by a urologist who said it wasn’t.
Evidence that the mother told him any such thing? I agree that it appears she told him something about the surgery, since she claims he doesn’t want it, but it seems to me that stating she spoke to him about a “monster who wanted to cut off his willy” is wildly hyperbolic.
I don’t see any need to descend to the level of rhetoric of the intactivists, or to brand people who oppose routine circumcision as a bunch of wild-eyed nutcases.
Well, if you can look at “A ‘snip’ in time: what is the best age to circumcise?” by Morris, et al, it says that the only real problems with post-newborn (note: note sure exactly what this means) circumcision is that erections can be painful during the healing process. Unfortunately, I cannot access most of the references that actually seem to talk about these issues in more detail, but 5-10% of circumcisions appear to fall in this “post-newborn” period and of even a small percentage are during the pre-school years than there would still be “lots”.
And we also know that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends circumcision and we also know that ultimately the decision does not legally have to be motivated by medical issues anyway.
No evidence, but since we are talking about a woman who fought this in court for years before hiding in an abused women’s shelter I don’t think it is unrealistic to think that she distorted the motives or position of the father and/or exaggerated the impact of the surgery. If you want me to be less hyperbolic, I would suggest by starting with a case that does not invite hyperbole.
I don’t brand people who opposed circumcision as wild-eyed nutcases, but I do reserve the right to brand this particular person as a wild-eyed nutcase. I have friends who variously made the decisions to circumcise or not, and largely I don’t consider them crazy because they handled it as responsible adults, without breaking the law or making it a massive legal case.
Wrong. This is from their website (emphasis mine):
I agree that allowing the intactivists to make a public circus out of it was a terrible decision on her part. I abhor the actions of people who court press for their children, whether it is for a good thing or a bad thing. I think it is extremely foolish.
But basically we have a mother who is favor of doing nothing at all to her perfectly normal and healthy son, and we have a father who is bound and determined to force that same child to undergo a completely unnecessary surgical procedure that at this age involves general anesthesia and is a lot more than a little snip. (If you aren’t convinced, there’s a youtube video a guy posted of his own adult circumcision.)
I really don’t understand why they didn’t do it when he was born, if the father was so hot to trot, but to me there is simply no excuse for his actions later. In the absence of an actual medical problem, he seems to be using the child as a means to bully his ex. Yet you reserve your ire for her.
Really? That’s what you are going with? They don’t recommend universal newborn circumcision, but they still think it is something that people should do unless they have some reason not to. Sorry if “recommend” was too strong a word for that.