Attorneys for the Rights of the Child has learned that a family court in Florida ruled in favor of circumcising Chase, a healthy 3-1/2-year-old boy. The decision was made against his mother’s wishes, based on his father’s desire to have him circumcised. The judge’s decision includes a provision that his mother is not even allowed to inform Chase of her position on circumcision.

At three and a half years old, Chase is a child who is fully aware of his body. He will experience and remember the pain, and he will be very aware that his body has been drastically changed.

Judge Gillen denied the motion to stay the case, and it now moves to the appellate court. Chase’s mother and her attorney plan to appeal the decision.

South Florida Intactivists Unite ( are planning a peaceful protest to send a loud and clear message to the judge that forcing a permanent, unnecessary, risky and painful body modification on Chase violates his human right to bodily integrity.

You may sign an online petition ( to Judge Gillen.

ARC is collaborating with other activists to find the best available alternatives for the boy and his mother.

Steven Svoboda
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

Related Content:
Parents in ongoing legal battle over 3-year-old South Florida boy’s circumcision

Courts Power Up
Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 05/14/2014 – 17:38.

(Forced) Circumcision is all about power over others. Part of this power demands everyone to shut up about circumcision, not speak, especially those who are circumcised. It’s lump it, be grateful, and shut up. It’s all good. This happened in 2011, when San Francisco Judge Giorgi tossed off the ballot the overly qualified measure that makes illegal all unnecessary non medical circumcision of male minors. So the voting right of San Franciscans to have their voice heard was denied. And silenced. Moreover, it sent a message that circumcision is not something for the public to be concerned. Wow. How about a condescending shut up. It’s for the public good. Again, this now happened when Judge Gillen demanded the mother to gag herself, to not talk about her concerns, a mother’s rightful concerns for her child, to not talk with her son specifically about circumcision. Thus Judge Gillen specifically ruled the mother to not speak, shut up (or what?). It’s my opinion, this judge is killing two birds with one stone – gag the mother and thus her son is also silenced, being unable to speak about circumcision for it is unknown and forbidden to be discussed. It’s all good for the family. (I would like to know how many instances Judge Gillen ran interference on family discussions.)