Go to Top
  • No products in the cart.

Cole’s Protectors

Intaction was asked to assist in a case that involved in a dispute between two parents over their child. Direct references to this case have been removed.

The parents ended their relationship due to irreconcilable differences, notably disagreements on the raising of their son.

Over the last few years, the mother became an ardent intactivist. She not only sought to protect her son’s genital integrity, but she has became deeply involved with advocating for the rights of genital integrity for all children.

Based on information and belief, the mother’s activism ran contrary to her partner’s religious beliefs, and a hostile atmosphere ensued between the parents.

Intaction became concerned that the father would exert his rights under the current parenting agreement in an attempt to circumcise his son. Furthermore, the father filed a legal action seeking full custody of his son, and he attempted to modify the parenting plan in court so as to weaken the mother’s rights to protect her son.

If the father was able to gain full custody, he could have attempted to assert his religious beliefs on the boy, and have him circumcised. There was a very real potential for a “spite circumcision.”

Intaction assisted in finding a reputable lawyer experienced in family law. Intaction participated in strategy meetings with counsel to ensure the mother’s rights, and her son’s genital integrity were protected. 

Intaction also conducted fundraising to help defray legal expenses. 

We are happy to report that the father has dropped his legal action that sought to modify the parenting agreement by seeking full custody. The child is safe from the potential threat of circumcision, and the mother’s parental rights have been maintained. Faced with the prospect of a large and costly legal battle against our legal counsel, Intaction’s legal advocacy, and the resources of the intactivist community, the father changed his mind. 

One Response to "Cole’s Protectors"

  • tal
    May 14, 2015 - 6:22 am Reply

    something is missing: why is ther no “doctor’s note” that the painful procedure is not “necessary” and why is the desire to cut a child a cause for custody?? child’s right bodily integrity is not defended? the one who wants to injure gets custody? and the one who protects the childs right to “integrity-whole body” loses custody i do not understand this event.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *