Mother 'will allow son's circumcision in return for release from prison'

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
This is all kinds of fvcked up.


___________________________________________________________
Woman who was jailed for fleeing with her son to avoid his circumcision has given up her fight over the surgery.

Heather Hironimus signed paperwork Friday 22 May to allow the procedure to go ahead and enable her release, following a morning court hearing.

Hironimus and the child’s father, Dennis Nebus, were never married but share custody of their child.


In a parenting agreement filed in court, the two agreed to the boy's circumcision, which Hironimus later rejected, leading to a long battle in court.

Nebus called the circumcision “just the normal thing to do,” denying any religious reasons for the cutting of the boy’s foreskin.

Hironimus faced dwindling legal options after spending one week in jail after ignoring a judge’s warning of imprisonment for failure to appear in court.

After going missing with her child in February, she was found at a shelter last week and arrested.

The case is being monitored by anti-circumcision activists who protest the decision.

Heather Hironimus: Mother gives up fight against child's circumcision for jail release - Americas - World - The Independent
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,591
2,334
113
Toronto, ON
Seems to me she was jailed for not appearing in court. She is twisting it to be about the circumcision which she agreed to but tried to change her mind.
 

SLM

The Velvet Hammer
Mar 5, 2011
29,151
3
36
London, Ontario
Seems to me she was jailed for not appearing in court. She is twisting it to be about the circumcision which she agreed to but tried to change her mind.

No I think that was when she received a week in jail previously. This jail time is for a little thing called kidnapping if I'm not mistaken.
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
No I think that was when she received a week in jail previously. This jail time is for a little thing called kidnapping if I'm not mistaken.

You are correct. Regardless of the reasons you kidnapp, it's still illegal.

BUT the article linked below states that her release was not because she served her time but BECAUSE she signed papers to allow the circumcision to go ahead. This article has a few more details on the history. The father is a bit of an ahole.


A Florida mother who fought for years to keep her son from being circumcized and was jailed for defying a court order was free Sunday after finally caving in and signing papers to allow the procedure. Heather Hironimus was released from jail late Saturday after having spent a week in in lockup for disappearing with her 4-year-old son ahead of a scheduled circumcision, ABC News reported.

Florida Mom In Son's Circumcision Battle Released From Jail
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,591
2,334
113
Toronto, ON
You are correct. Regardless of the reasons you kidnapp, it's still illegal.

BUT the article linked below states that her release was not because she served her time but BECAUSE she signed papers to allow the circumcision to go ahead. This article has a few more details on the history. The father is a bit of an ahole.




Florida Mom In Son's Circumcision Battle Released From Jail

From the article you quoted: "A Florida mother who fought for years to keep her son from being circumcized and was jailed for defying a court order was free Sunday after finally caving in and signing papers to allow the procedure". I shrunk the irrelivent parts of the sentence and bolded the pertinent ones. She stopped being in contempt of court and was released.

The father may be an a-hole but she signed the original document.

It is unfortunate that both parents couldn't have agreed or not with the procedure. Also not sure why they went to the trouble of doing the document when they could have just made an appointment and done it.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
She probably ran at the urging of her child who may have said he would rather not go through the procedure. Circumcision is a religious thing or most of the world would be suffering some ill effects from having a foreskin. I'd opt for it if it got me through a check-stop or something like that. I doubt either condition is going to result in neater writing in the snow.
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
From the article you quoted: "A Florida mother who fought for years to keep her son from being circumcized and was jailed for defying a court order was free Sunday after finally caving in and signing papers to allow the procedure". I shrunk the irrelivent parts of the sentence and bolded the pertinent ones. She stopped being in contempt of court and was released.

The father may be an a-hole but she signed the original document.

It is unfortunate that both parents couldn't have agreed or not with the procedure. Also not sure why they went to the trouble of doing the document when they could have just made an appointment and done it.

You can't say that "was freed on sunday after FINALLY CAVING IN AND SIGNING THE PAPERS isn't pertinent.


if this were simply about which church the child is to attend, or which school, or even visitation disagreement, fine. But this is about an unnecessary medical precedure AND one parent feels very very strongly that she does not want her child, needlessly, operated on. For this I'm on her side.

I'm sure the crowd that always joins in with don't forget boys are mutilated too, when it's about female mutilation will chime in shortly....
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,591
2,334
113
Toronto, ON
You can't say that "was freed on sunday after FINALLY CAVING IN AND SIGNING THE PAPERS isn't pertinent.

She was in jail because of defying the court order, she was freed when she stopped defying it. Period. Dead Stop. End of story. The rest of it is window dressing to strengthen opinion.

if this were simply about which church the child is to attend, or which school, or even visitation disagreement, fine. But this is about an unnecessary medical precedure AND one parent feels very very strongly that she does not want her child, needlessly, operated on. For this I'm on her side.

The procedure is not harmful and can prevent infections and stuff later in life. It is also not mutilation. But I agree that both parents should discuss it and make the best determination for them and their kid. I am very pro-choice in this.

If she felt that strongly, why did she sign the paper in the first place? This is simply a case of her growing a backbone once it didn't matter if she had a backbone. The time for the backbone was when she had the pen in hand. She signed, end of story. Her fault that she wound up in jail.

I'm sure the crowd that always joins in with don't forget boys are mutilated too, when it's about female mutilation will chime in shortly....

We are not discussing female genital mutilation which is a completely different procedure and reasons for doing it are not anywhere close to the same.
 

Twila

Nanah Potato
Mar 26, 2003
14,698
73
48
She was in jail because of defying the court order, she was freed when she stopped defying it. Period. Dead Stop. End of story. The rest of it is window dressing to strengthen opinion.



The procedure is not harmful and can prevent infections and stuff later in life. It is also not mutilation. But I agree that both parents should discuss it and make the best determination for them and their kid. I am very pro-choice in this.

If she felt that strongly, why did she sign the paper in the first place? This is simply a case of her growing a backbone once it didn't matter if she had a backbone. The time for the backbone was when she had the pen in hand. She signed, end of story. Her fault that she wound up in jail.

We'll have to agree to disagree about both these points. I feel that knowing her release was because she signed the papers to agree is the main point. She would not have been released had she not signed those papers. I also feel that anyone at anytime has the right to change their mind about things such as this.

We are not discussing female genital mutilation which is a completely different procedure and reasons for doing it are not anywhere close to the same.

Some disagree with you on this, at least from what I've gathered when posts about female circumcision have been posted.