Latest Breaking News

Nine

(1,741 posts)

47. I am the one who pointed that out.

Fri May 22, 2015, 03:23 PM

May 2015

It's not just that phimosis was "not brought up" in the original trial, it's that the urologist's testimony that there was no medical necessity for the surgery proves that the husband's claim to the media is a lie. Keloids and anesthesia issues were also not brought up in the original trial, but they have been brought up by the new lawyer in court documents, and I have seen pictures on the Chase's Guardians site said to be the boy's keloid scars, so I tend to think this fact is true and that the mother simply had a poor lawyer the first time.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Mom signs consent for son's circumcision to get out of jail � but now faces new criminal charge [View all] Nine May 2015 OP

I don't know what the father's hard-on is about the circumcision cosmicone May 2015 #1

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #53

What a horror story! PatSeg May 2015 #2

I hope the judge shows some discretion. She has obviously learnt not to mess with the law. Joe Chi Minh May 2015 #3

Signing under those conditions is the same thing as not signing at all. StevieM May 2015 #4

Actually she did Major Nikon May 2015 #13

I am referring to the second signing that the judge demanded, something that he did so that StevieM May 2015 #14

That's another accusation of fraud Orrex May 2015 #37

Lying to a child does not constitute perjury. StevieM May 2015 #39

Coercing an adult under false pretenses does Orrex May 2015 #43

I am saying that the law is a bad one. And all laws, to some extent, are based on emotions. StevieM May 2015 #54

Pay wall. Orrex May 2015 #66

At this point I have to be honest with you about something. StevieM May 2015 #70

Thank you for the gracious words. Orrex May 2015 #74

LOL, there are about 25 of them (at least) that have all been started in the last 24 hours. StevieM May 2015 #77

re: "Again, her change of mind doesn't trump her previously signed legal contract." Nine May 2015 #44

That comparison is obviously false. Orrex May 2015 #49

It already was a mutual decision Major Nikon May 2015 #40

First of all, my point is that the courts are wrong IMO. I do think she should have been allowed to StevieM May 2015 #45

How do you know the courts are wrong when nobody here has all the facts? Major Nikon May 2015 #56

I don't always agree with the law and even if the courts had the right StevieM May 2015 #57

She was not bullied, she was just ordered to comply with cstanleytech May 2015 #58

First of all, they didn't need her signature since they could have simply ruled against her, which StevieM May 2015 #62

Clearly they did need it still otherwise she wouldnt have been be facing potential jail time. cstanleytech May 2015 #71

Plenty of arrangements are contingent upon avoiding jail time. Orrex May 2015 #16

Because she wasn't honestly looking for her son to be circumcised. The point to the signing StevieM May 2015 #18

Did she or did she not sign the original consent agreement? Orrex May 2015 #20

That isn't the subject of this thread. The thread is about whether the mother truly backed down StevieM May 2015 #21

You summarily dismiss a legal contract? That's very interesting. Orrex May 2015 #25

I don't recognize that a child's penis is subject to a "legal contract." StevieM May 2015 #27

Well, it's hardly up to you. Orrex May 2015 #32

I am aware that it is not up to me. StevieM May 2015 #36

The first thing I thought when I read this rock May 2015 #59

The boy has risk factors for seizures and keloids with the surgery! riderinthestorm May 2015 #5

That was NOT brought up in the trial.... happyslug May 2015 #22

The child doesn't have any medical condition requiring circumcision riderinthestorm May 2015 #46

I am the one who pointed that out. Nine May 2015 #47

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2015 #55

Circumcision can be done for medical reasons perdita9 May 2015 #6

But he's not Jewish. Thus, no, there is NO satisfactory closeupready May 2015 #12

But not usually on 4-year olds. subterranean May 2015 #15

True, but the article didn't say WHY it was being done perdita9 May 2015 #82

Traumatizing a four year old for this? Laser102 May 2015 #7

And on top of that, he has a mom who wasn't willing to go to jail for his sake Orrex May 2015 #10

She DID go to jail for his sake. Nine May 2015 #24

She copped a plea to get out of going to jail for his sake. Orrex May 2015 #28

It doesn't sound like you are familiar with the history of this case. (nt) Nine May 2015 #48

I imagine that it's easier for you to think that's true. Orrex May 2015 #50

I fully support her. In my non-lawyer opinion, she has caselaw on her side. closeupready May 2015 #8

Except that it isn't Android3.14 May 2015 #17

What are the medical benefits of circumcision? Doremus May 2015 #52

You say circumcision is not only equivalent to FGM Android3.14 May 2015 #78

Absolutely not the same thing at all. Orrex May 2015 #19

NOPE. Wrong answer. closeupready May 2015 #23

Oh? Orrex May 2015 #26

Why isn't it the same thing? Nine May 2015 #31

Then the distinction must be made by the claimaint. Orrex May 2015 #35

Then you acknowledge that they can be equivalent? Nine May 2015 #51

I don't believe that that was my assertion. Orrex May 2015 #64

And it's been said before, but what kind of deity demands mutilation closeupready May 2015 #9

One theory says it had to do with AIDS. happyslug May 2015 #30

in a desert, it's hard to wash up between the oases wordpix May 2015 #34

I'm not understanding the AIDS theory. AIDS is contemporary closeupready May 2015 #38

AID being SPREAD is new, its actual age is debatable. happyslug May 2015 #61

It looks like a bit of a leap of logic to date AIDS back centuries. Chemisse May 2015 #72

You do understand the theory of evolution do you? happyslug May 2015 #81

Looks like the stupid is in both branches of the tree Android3.14 May 2015 #11

Judge "granted full custody and parental decisions" to Father. Now she has no say in the med. issue Sunlei May 2015 #29

Any doctor who performs it now is getting sued the moment the kid turns 18. McCamy Taylor May 2015 #33

On what possible grounds? Orrex May 2015 #41

Since the court ordered the mother to comply with the agreement she had cstanleytech May 2015 #60

For what? You can only sue for MONEY DAMAGES and any damages here would be speculative happyslug May 2015 #65

what are the respective arguements from each parent? Kali May 2015 #42

I wonder... deathrind May 2015 #63

Yes. She wants to piss the Father off. nt COLGATE4 May 2015 #67

I was just asking so I could understand deathrind May 2015 #68

Why is it so hard to believe the mother is sincere? Nine May 2015 #76

The Mother's actions allowed the judge to give solo custody to the Father. TerrapinFlyer May 2015 #69

As a guy, delta17 May 2015 #73

I was about 4 YO madokie May 2015 #75

If it's true that the boy had complications TDale313 May 2015 #79

Your right, this situation screams out for a guardian ad litum nt riderinthestorm May 2015 #80