Boldt v. Boldt - Revision history

WikiModEn2: /* Legal proceedings */ Wikify.

2024-08-16T16:33:59Z

Legal proceedings: Wikify.

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:33, 16 August 2024
Line 15:		Line 15:
	==Legal proceedings==		==Legal proceedings==

	The case started in 2004 when James Boldt, a divorced father, who had custody of his nine-year-old son, decided to convert from Russian Orthodox to [[Judaism]] and wanted to have his son circumcised in accordance with the [[Abrahamic covenant]]. The son, however, had not converted and did not want to be [[circumcised]]. He was supported by his mother in his desire for [[genital integrity]].<ref name="svoboda2010">{{REFweb		The case started in 2004 when James Boldt, a divorced father, who had custody of his nine-year-old son, decided to convert from Russian Orthodox to [[Judaism]] and wanted to have his son [[circumcised]] in accordance with the [[Abrahamic covenant]]. The son, however, had not converted and did not want to be [[circumcised]]. He was supported by his mother in his desire for [[genital integrity]].<ref name="svoboda2010">{{REFweb
	\|url=https://arclaw.org.customers.tigertech.net/wp-content/uploads/Svoboda-Three-Fourths-Were-Abnormal-Mishas-Case-Sick-Societies-and-the-Law-Denniston-Milos-Hodges-Genital-Autonomy-Protecting-Personal-Choice-2010.pdf		\|url=https://arclaw.org.customers.tigertech.net/wp-content/uploads/Svoboda-Three-Fourths-Were-Abnormal-Mishas-Case-Sick-Societies-and-the-Law-Denniston-Milos-Hodges-Genital-Autonomy-Protecting-Personal-Choice-2010.pdf
	\|archived=		\|archived=

WikiModEn2: Wikify.

2024-08-08T21:05:30Z

Wikify.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:05, 8 August 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Boldt v. Boldt''', framed as a child-custody case originating in the state of Oregon, actually concerns the proposed non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of a boy, intended to indulge his father's religious urges.		'''Boldt v. Boldt''', framed as a child-custody case originating in the state of Oregon, actually concerns the proposed non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of a boy, intended to indulge his father's religious urges.

	On Sunday, May 30, 2004, the mother, Russian-born Mrs. Lia Nikolaevna Boldt, learned from her son, nine-year-old Mikhail James Boldt, known as Misha/Jimmy, that the custodial father, James Harlan Boldt, was planning on having him circumcised as part of the father's plan to convert the child from the Russian Orthodox faith to the Jewish faith.<ref>{{REFdocument		On Sunday, May 30, 2004, the mother, Russian-born Mrs. Lia Nikolaevna Boldt, learned from her son, nine-year-old Mikhail James Boldt, known as Misha/Jimmy, that the custodial father, James Harlan Boldt, was planning on having him [[circumcised]] as part of the father's plan to convert the child from the Russian Orthodox faith to the Jewish faith.<ref>{{REFdocument
	\|title= Appelant's Brief and Excerpt of Record		\|title= Appelant's Brief and Excerpt of Record
	\|url=		\|url=

WikiModEn2: /* Commentary on Boldt v. Boldt */ Wikify.

2024-08-08T21:04:18Z

Commentary on Boldt v. Boldt: Wikify.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 8 August 2024
Line 224:		Line 224:
	Geisheker notes that the Court mentioned only the child’s right to be heard, but did not recognize its paramount duty to protect him. Misha’s case is a sad commentary upon American life and constitutional principles. ''Boldt v. Boldt'' eloquently demonstrates that in the US, at least, the law to date has not been able to effectively grapple with such a heavily contextual and cultural practice as male circumcision.		Geisheker notes that the Court mentioned only the child’s right to be heard, but did not recognize its paramount duty to protect him. Misha’s case is a sad commentary upon American life and constitutional principles. ''Boldt v. Boldt'' eloquently demonstrates that in the US, at least, the law to date has not been able to effectively grapple with such a heavily contextual and cultural practice as male circumcision.

	To date, with one known exception, all awards and settlements have occurred in cases involving either a “botched” procedure or a lack of [[informed consent]]. At least three times, courts have avoided squarely addressing the legality of male circumcision by diverting the discussion into such peripheral, procedural issues as standing. Judicial views of standing are politically and culturally shaped in response to social mandates. Although MGC is currently illegal under existing laws and [[human rights]] treaties, if properly and objectively interpreted free of cultural bias, American cultural blindness has prevented recognition of this. Elsewhere in the world, Tasmania’s Law Review Commission recently released a lengthy issues paper questioning the legality of male circumcision. Sweden has regulated circumcision and the practice was recently made illegal in South Africa, with religious and medical exceptions included that threaten to swallow the rule. While the practice is not otherwise explicitly prohibited anywhere in the world, it is of course illegal worldwide under a broad range of prohibitions imposed by statute, common or civil law, [[human rights]] treaties, and customary law.<ref name="svoboda2010" />		To date, with one known exception, all awards and settlements have occurred in cases involving either a “botched” procedure or a lack of [[informed consent]]. At least three times, courts have avoided squarely addressing the legality of male circumcision by diverting the discussion into such peripheral, procedural issues as standing. Judicial views of standing are politically and culturally shaped in response to social mandates. Although MGC is currently illegal under existing laws and [[human rights]] treaties, if properly and objectively interpreted free of cultural bias, American cultural blindness has prevented recognition of this. Elsewhere in the world, Tasmania’s Law Review Commission recently released a lengthy issues paper questioning the legality of male circumcision. Sweden has regulated circumcision and the practice was recently made illegal in [[South Africa]], with religious and medical exceptions included that threaten to swallow the rule. While the practice is not otherwise explicitly prohibited anywhere in the world, it is of course illegal worldwide under a broad range of prohibitions imposed by statute, common or civil law, [[human rights]] treaties, and customary law.<ref name="svoboda2010" />
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

WikiModEn2: /* Legal proceedings */ Wikify.

2024-08-08T20:56:19Z

Legal proceedings: Wikify.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:56, 8 August 2024
Line 15:		Line 15:
	==Legal proceedings==		==Legal proceedings==

	The case started in 2004 when James Boldt, a divorced father, who had custody of his nine-year-old son, decided to convert from Russian Orthodox to [[Judaism]] and wanted to have his son circumcised in accordance with the [[Abrahamic covenant]]. The son, however, had not converted and did not want to be circumcised. He was supported by his mother in his desire for [[genital integrity]].<ref name="svoboda2010">{{REFweb		The case started in 2004 when James Boldt, a divorced father, who had custody of his nine-year-old son, decided to convert from Russian Orthodox to [[Judaism]] and wanted to have his son circumcised in accordance with the [[Abrahamic covenant]]. The son, however, had not converted and did not want to be [[circumcised]]. He was supported by his mother in his desire for [[genital integrity]].<ref name="svoboda2010">{{REFweb
	\|url=https://arclaw.org.customers.tigertech.net/wp-content/uploads/Svoboda-Three-Fourths-Were-Abnormal-Mishas-Case-Sick-Societies-and-the-Law-Denniston-Milos-Hodges-Genital-Autonomy-Protecting-Personal-Choice-2010.pdf		\|url=https://arclaw.org.customers.tigertech.net/wp-content/uploads/Svoboda-Three-Fourths-Were-Abnormal-Mishas-Case-Sick-Societies-and-the-Law-Denniston-Milos-Hodges-Genital-Autonomy-Protecting-Personal-Choice-2010.pdf
	\|archived=		\|archived=
Line 100:		Line 100:
	"Misha went home with his father the day of the final appearance before Judge Greif on April 22. No one knows what transpired later between the father and the son who had bravely defied him -at age 14- in the Judge's chambers, and before the many attendees at the hearing."		"Misha went home with his father the day of the final appearance before Judge Greif on April 22. No one knows what transpired later between the father and the son who had bravely defied him -at age 14- in the Judge's chambers, and before the many attendees at the hearing."
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
	The Court then issued a verbal order from the bench that the boy was not to be circumcised. The court then followed that with a written order on 2 June 2009, in which the court found that a substantial change of circumstances had occurred and ordered an investigation by an independent child custody evaluator for a future evidentiary hearing.<ref name="geisheker2009" />		The Court then issued a verbal order from the bench that the boy was not to be [[circumcised]]. The court then followed that with a written order on 2 June 2009, in which the court found that a substantial change of circumstances had occurred and ordered an investigation by an independent child custody evaluator for a future evidentiary hearing.<ref name="geisheker2009" />

	In September 2009, facing a custody hearing he was likely to lose, the father voluntarily agreed to give up physical custody of Misha (now 14-years-old) to his mother with court approval. The stipulated custody order provides:		In September 2009, facing a custody hearing he was likely to lose, the father voluntarily agreed to give up physical custody of Misha (now 14-years-old) to his mother with court approval. The stipulated custody order provides:

WikiModEn2: /* Sequelae */ Add link in SEEALSO section.

2024-04-23T20:33:07Z

Sequelae: Add link in SEEALSO section.

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:33, 23 April 2024
Line 275:		Line 275:
	* [[Human rights]]		* [[Human rights]]
	* [[Cologne circumcision court judgment]] (7 May 2012)		* [[Cologne circumcision court judgment]] (7 May 2012)
			* [[United States of America]]
	{{LINKS}}		{{LINKS}}
	* {{REFweb		* {{REFweb

WikiAdmin: wikify Informed consent

2022-08-25T12:46:57Z

wikify Informed consent

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:46, 25 August 2022
Line 224:		Line 224:
	Geisheker notes that the Court mentioned only the child’s right to be heard, but did not recognize its paramount duty to protect him. Misha’s case is a sad commentary upon American life and constitutional principles. ''Boldt v. Boldt'' eloquently demonstrates that in the US, at least, the law to date has not been able to effectively grapple with such a heavily contextual and cultural practice as male circumcision.		Geisheker notes that the Court mentioned only the child’s right to be heard, but did not recognize its paramount duty to protect him. Misha’s case is a sad commentary upon American life and constitutional principles. ''Boldt v. Boldt'' eloquently demonstrates that in the US, at least, the law to date has not been able to effectively grapple with such a heavily contextual and cultural practice as male circumcision.

	To date, with one known exception, all awards and settlements have occurred in cases involving either a “botched” procedure or a lack of informed consent. At least three times, courts have avoided squarely addressing the legality of male circumcision by diverting the discussion into such peripheral, procedural issues as standing. Judicial views of standing are politically and culturally shaped in response to social mandates. Although MGC is currently illegal under existing laws and [[human rights]] treaties, if properly and objectively interpreted free of cultural bias, American cultural blindness has prevented recognition of this. Elsewhere in the world, Tasmania’s Law Review Commission recently released a lengthy issues paper questioning the legality of male circumcision. Sweden has regulated circumcision and the practice was recently made illegal in South Africa, with religious and medical exceptions included that threaten to swallow the rule. While the practice is not otherwise explicitly prohibited anywhere in the world, it is of course illegal worldwide under a broad range of prohibitions imposed by statute, common or civil law, [[human rights]] treaties, and customary law.<ref name="svoboda2010" />		To date, with one known exception, all awards and settlements have occurred in cases involving either a “botched” procedure or a lack of [[informed consent]]. At least three times, courts have avoided squarely addressing the legality of male circumcision by diverting the discussion into such peripheral, procedural issues as standing. Judicial views of standing are politically and culturally shaped in response to social mandates. Although MGC is currently illegal under existing laws and [[human rights]] treaties, if properly and objectively interpreted free of cultural bias, American cultural blindness has prevented recognition of this. Elsewhere in the world, Tasmania’s Law Review Commission recently released a lengthy issues paper questioning the legality of male circumcision. Sweden has regulated circumcision and the practice was recently made illegal in South Africa, with religious and medical exceptions included that threaten to swallow the rule. While the practice is not otherwise explicitly prohibited anywhere in the world, it is of course illegal worldwide under a broad range of prohibitions imposed by statute, common or civil law, [[human rights]] treaties, and customary law.<ref name="svoboda2010" />
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

WikiAdmin: wikify DOC

2022-06-16T08:51:53Z

wikify DOC

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:51, 16 June 2022
Line 38:		Line 38:
	The court did not think that the father's desire to cut off part of his son's [[penis]] was grounds for a change of custody, however the court granted the injunction against the proposed circumcision. Lia Boldt then filed an appeal of the circuit court's decision with the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/coa/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Court of Appeals] (OCA).<ref name="svoboda2010" /> The OCA rejected Lia Boldt's appeal.		The court did not think that the father's desire to cut off part of his son's [[penis]] was grounds for a change of custody, however the court granted the injunction against the proposed circumcision. Lia Boldt then filed an appeal of the circuit court's decision with the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/coa/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Court of Appeals] (OCA).<ref name="svoboda2010" /> The OCA rejected Lia Boldt's appeal.

	She then appealed to the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Supreme Court] (OSC) in 2007. It was at this point that [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] entered the case. Doctors Opposing Circumcision realized that the OSC needed information about circumcision and about the child's rights under Constitutional and international [[human rights]] law, so it filed an ''amicus curaie'' brief to help the Court understand why it should accept the case. The brief stated in part:		She then appealed to the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Supreme Court] (OSC) in 2007. It was at this point that [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]] entered the case. [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]] realized that the OSC needed information about circumcision and about the child's rights under Constitutional and international [[human rights]] law, so it filed an ''amicus curaie'' brief to help the Court understand why it should accept the case. The brief stated in part:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	Mikhail (Misha/Jimmy) James Boldt, (hereinafter ‘Misha/Jimmy’) is a minor who is legally incompetent. Nevertheless, Misha/Jimmy is a person with rights of his own. As a minor he deserves special protection under Oregon, and international law. Misha/Jimmy has an unalienable right to protection and security of his person, and the Courts of the State of Oregon have a corresponding obligation to protect his rights independent from and even despite the wishes of a parent who might endanger the child unnecessarily.<ref name="docbrief1">{{REFdocument		Mikhail (Misha/Jimmy) James Boldt, (hereinafter ‘Misha/Jimmy’) is a minor who is legally incompetent. Nevertheless, Misha/Jimmy is a person with rights of his own. As a minor he deserves special protection under Oregon, and international law. Misha/Jimmy has an unalienable right to protection and security of his person, and the Courts of the State of Oregon have a corresponding obligation to protect his rights independent from and even despite the wishes of a parent who might endanger the child unnecessarily.<ref name="docbrief1">{{REFdocument
Line 46:		Line 46:
	\|last=Geisheker		\|last=Geisheker
	\|first=John V.		\|first=John V.
	\|publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision		\|publisher=[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]]
	\|format=PDF		\|format=PDF
	\|date=2007-04		\|date=2007-04
Line 61:		Line 61:
	\|last=Geisheker		\|last=Geisheker
	\|first=John		\|first=John
	\|publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision		\|publisher=[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]]
	\|format=PDF		\|format=PDF
	\|date=2007-07		\|date=2007-07

WikiAdmin: wikify

2022-06-15T17:42:18Z

wikify

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:42, 15 June 2022
Line 38:		Line 38:
	The court did not think that the father's desire to cut off part of his son's [[penis]] was grounds for a change of custody, however the court granted the injunction against the proposed circumcision. Lia Boldt then filed an appeal of the circuit court's decision with the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/coa/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Court of Appeals] (OCA).<ref name="svoboda2010" /> The OCA rejected Lia Boldt's appeal.		The court did not think that the father's desire to cut off part of his son's [[penis]] was grounds for a change of custody, however the court granted the injunction against the proposed circumcision. Lia Boldt then filed an appeal of the circuit court's decision with the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/coa/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Court of Appeals] (OCA).<ref name="svoboda2010" /> The OCA rejected Lia Boldt's appeal.

	She then appealed to the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Supreme Court] (OSC) in 2007. It was at this point that [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] entered the case. Doctors Opposing Circumcision realized that the OSC needed information about circumcision and about the child's rights under Constitutional and international human rights law, so it filed an ''amicus curaie'' brief to help the Court understand why it should accept the case. The brief stated in part:		She then appealed to the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Supreme Court] (OSC) in 2007. It was at this point that [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] entered the case. Doctors Opposing Circumcision realized that the OSC needed information about circumcision and about the child's rights under Constitutional and international [[human rights]] law, so it filed an ''amicus curaie'' brief to help the Court understand why it should accept the case. The brief stated in part:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	Mikhail (Misha/Jimmy) James Boldt, (hereinafter ‘Misha/Jimmy’) is a minor who is legally incompetent. Nevertheless, Misha/Jimmy is a person with rights of his own. As a minor he deserves special protection under Oregon, and international law. Misha/Jimmy has an unalienable right to protection and security of his person, and the Courts of the State of Oregon have a corresponding obligation to protect his rights independent from and even despite the wishes of a parent who might endanger the child unnecessarily.<ref name="docbrief1">{{REFdocument		Mikhail (Misha/Jimmy) James Boldt, (hereinafter ‘Misha/Jimmy’) is a minor who is legally incompetent. Nevertheless, Misha/Jimmy is a person with rights of his own. As a minor he deserves special protection under Oregon, and international law. Misha/Jimmy has an unalienable right to protection and security of his person, and the Courts of the State of Oregon have a corresponding obligation to protect his rights independent from and even despite the wishes of a parent who might endanger the child unnecessarily.<ref name="docbrief1">{{REFdocument
Line 141:		Line 141:
	}}</ref>		}}</ref>

	Thus ended in victory a five-year legal battle to save a boy's [[foreskin]]. The boy's legal, constitutional, and human rights prevailed over the father's claimed religious right to excise a [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions\| functional body part]] from his son's body. The father's supporters, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America were also on the losing side.		Thus ended in victory a five-year legal battle to save a boy's [[foreskin]]. The boy's legal, constitutional, and [[human rights]] prevailed over the father's claimed religious right to excise a [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions\| functional body part]] from his son's body. The father's supporters, the American Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America were also on the losing side.

	[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]] filed two ''amicus curiae'' briefs in this case and was successful in protecting the boy's [[foreskin]] from [[circumcision]].<ref name="docbrief1" /><ref name="docbrief2" />		[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]] filed two ''amicus curiae'' briefs in this case and was successful in protecting the boy's [[foreskin]] from [[circumcision]].<ref name="docbrief1" /><ref name="docbrief2" />
Line 224:		Line 224:
	Geisheker notes that the Court mentioned only the child’s right to be heard, but did not recognize its paramount duty to protect him. Misha’s case is a sad commentary upon American life and constitutional principles. ''Boldt v. Boldt'' eloquently demonstrates that in the US, at least, the law to date has not been able to effectively grapple with such a heavily contextual and cultural practice as male circumcision.		Geisheker notes that the Court mentioned only the child’s right to be heard, but did not recognize its paramount duty to protect him. Misha’s case is a sad commentary upon American life and constitutional principles. ''Boldt v. Boldt'' eloquently demonstrates that in the US, at least, the law to date has not been able to effectively grapple with such a heavily contextual and cultural practice as male circumcision.

	To date, with one known exception, all awards and settlements have occurred in cases involving either a “botched” procedure or a lack of informed consent. At least three times, courts have avoided squarely addressing the legality of male circumcision by diverting the discussion into such peripheral, procedural issues as standing. Judicial views of standing are politically and culturally shaped in response to social mandates. Although MGC is currently illegal under existing laws and human rights treaties, if properly and objectively interpreted free of cultural bias, American cultural blindness has prevented recognition of this. Elsewhere in the world, Tasmania’s Law Review Commission recently released a lengthy issues paper questioning the legality of male circumcision. Sweden has regulated circumcision and the practice was recently made illegal in South Africa, with religious and medical exceptions included that threaten to swallow the rule. While the practice is not otherwise explicitly prohibited anywhere in the world, it is of course illegal worldwide under a broad range of prohibitions imposed by statute, common or civil law, human rights treaties, and customary law.<ref name="svoboda2010" />		To date, with one known exception, all awards and settlements have occurred in cases involving either a “botched” procedure or a lack of informed consent. At least three times, courts have avoided squarely addressing the legality of male circumcision by diverting the discussion into such peripheral, procedural issues as standing. Judicial views of standing are politically and culturally shaped in response to social mandates. Although MGC is currently illegal under existing laws and [[human rights]] treaties, if properly and objectively interpreted free of cultural bias, American cultural blindness has prevented recognition of this. Elsewhere in the world, Tasmania’s Law Review Commission recently released a lengthy issues paper questioning the legality of male circumcision. Sweden has regulated circumcision and the practice was recently made illegal in South Africa, with religious and medical exceptions included that threaten to swallow the rule. While the practice is not otherwise explicitly prohibited anywhere in the world, it is of course illegal worldwide under a broad range of prohibitions imposed by statute, common or civil law, [[human rights]] treaties, and customary law.<ref name="svoboda2010" />
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>

WikiModEn2: /* Legal proceedings */ Wikify.

2022-05-11T11:06:58Z

Legal proceedings: Wikify.

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:06, 11 May 2022
Line 15:		Line 15:
	==Legal proceedings==		==Legal proceedings==

	The case started in 2004 when James Boldt, a divorced father, who had custody of his nine-year-old son, decided to convert from Russian Orthodox to Judaism and wanted to have his son circumcised in accordance with the [[Abrahamic covenant]]. The son, however, had not converted and did not want to be circumcised. He was supported by his mother in his desire for [[genital integrity]].<ref name="svoboda2010">{{REFweb		The case started in 2004 when James Boldt, a divorced father, who had custody of his nine-year-old son, decided to convert from Russian Orthodox to [[Judaism]] and wanted to have his son circumcised in accordance with the [[Abrahamic covenant]]. The son, however, had not converted and did not want to be circumcised. He was supported by his mother in his desire for [[genital integrity]].<ref name="svoboda2010">{{REFweb
	\|url=https://arclaw.org.customers.tigertech.net/wp-content/uploads/Svoboda-Three-Fourths-Were-Abnormal-Mishas-Case-Sick-Societies-and-the-Law-Denniston-Milos-Hodges-Genital-Autonomy-Protecting-Personal-Choice-2010.pdf		\|url=https://arclaw.org.customers.tigertech.net/wp-content/uploads/Svoboda-Three-Fourths-Were-Abnormal-Mishas-Case-Sick-Societies-and-the-Law-Denniston-Milos-Hodges-Genital-Autonomy-Protecting-Personal-Choice-2010.pdf
	\|archived=		\|archived=

WikiModEn2: /* Commentary on Boldt v. Boldt */ Delete inaccurate comment; Wikify.

2022-05-11T10:55:53Z

Commentary on Boldt v. Boldt: Delete inaccurate comment; Wikify.

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:55, 11 May 2022
Line 168:		Line 168:
	\|format=		\|format=
	\|quote=		\|quote=
	~~}}</ref>~~
	~~</blockquote>~~

	~~Yeshiva World (2008) commented:~~
	~~<blockquote>~~
	The groups added that while the Oregon Supreme Court had taken note of conflicting parental claims about the 12-year-old child’s wishes, it did not hold those wishes to be determinative. Rather, it charged the trial court with resolving whether, in fact, the child’s wishes were in opposition to the father’s, and if so, whether overriding them would adversely affect the child’s relations with his father. That is, the groups noted, a holding tailored to the unusual circumstances of this case, and does not materially weaken the impact of the court’s decision allowing parents to circumcise their children.<ref name="yeshiva2008">{{REFweb
	~~\|url=https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/14103/ou-welcomes-oregon-court-ruling-in-circumcision-case.html~~
	~~\|title=OU Welcomes Oregon Court Ruling in Circumcision Case~~
	~~\|last=~~
	~~\|first=~~
	~~\|accessdate=2020-04-27~~
	}}</ref>		}}</ref>
	</blockquote>		</blockquote>
Line 184:		Line 173:
	The 2009 NOCIRC Annual Newsletter commented:		The 2009 NOCIRC Annual Newsletter commented:
	<blockquote>		<blockquote>
	The US Supreme Court in October turned down a father’s petition in '' Boldt v Boldt''. The boy’s father, who converted to Judaism and wants his son circumcised, was unhappy with the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court to determine the wishes of the child, and appealed to the US Supreme Court, alleging the child’s wishes are irrelevant. Fortunately, the right of the boy was paramount in the court’s decision.<ref>{{REFweb		The US Supreme Court in October turned down a father’s petition in '' Boldt v Boldt''. The boy’s father, who converted to [[Judaism]] and wants his son circumcised, was unhappy with the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court to determine the wishes of the child, and appealed to the US Supreme Court, alleging the child’s wishes are irrelevant. Fortunately, the right of the boy was paramount in the court’s decision.<ref>{{REFweb
	\|url=http://www.nocirc.org/publish/2009nocirc_newsletter.pdf		\|url=http://www.nocirc.org/publish/2009nocirc_newsletter.pdf
	\|title=2009 NOCIRC Annual Newsletter		\|title=2009 NOCIRC Annual Newsletter