Boldt v. Boldt

Construction Site

This article is work in progress and not yet part of the free encyclopedia IntactiWiki.

 

Boldt v. Boldt is formally a child custody case from the state of Oregon, however it actually is about the proposed circumcision of a boy.

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.

His mother, Lia Boldt, filed suit in the Jackson County Circuit Court for an injunction to prohibit the circumcision ann for change of custody, which was denied (No. 98-2318-D(3)), however the court granted the injunction against the proposed circumcision. Lia Boldt then filed an appeal of the circuit court's decision with the Oregon Court of Appeals.

The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected Lia Boldt's appeal. She then appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court (ORS) in 2007. It was at that point that Doctors Opposing Circumcision entered the case. Doctors Opposing Circumcision realized that the ORS 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.

A long-running legal case in the United States, finally resolved in 2009, when courts in the state of Oregon ruled that a parent could not compel a child over which he had custody to get circumcised against the boy's will. The case is of interest in its potential to limit the power of parents to impose circumcision and similar physical alterations on children and in its implicit recognition that children have their own rights – to physical integrity and freedom of conscience and religion – independently of their parents' belief.

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.

External links

• Geisheker, John V.: BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE, DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION,IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW , Doctors Opposing Circumcision. (April 2007). Retrieved 22 April 2020.

• Geisheker, John: BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF AMICUS CURIAE, DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION , Doctors Opposing Circumcision. (July 2007). Retrieved 23 April 2020.

• Boldt and Boldt, (CC No. 98-2318-D(3); CA A126175; SC S054714), Oregon Supreme Court. (25 January 2008). Retrieved 19 April 2020.

• No. 07–1348. Boldt v. Boldt. Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari de­nied. 555 US 814 Reported below: 344 Ore. 1, 176 P. 3d 388. (2008)

• Geisheker, John. American legal precedent confirms child’s right to reject circumcision. Retrieved 18 April 2020.
• (25 January 2008)."Ask boy, 12, if he wants to be circumcised, court says", CNN. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
• Diekema, Doug. Boldt v. Boldt: A pediatric ethics perspective. J Clin Ethics. September 2009; 20(3): 251-7. PMID. Retrieved 19 April 2020.
• Geisheker, John V.. Where is the voice of the man the child will become? Defending the child's right to an open future. J Clin Ethics. March 2010; 21(1): 86-88. PMID. Retrieved 19 April 2020.

• Geisheker, John V.. Where Is the Voice of the Man the Child Will Become?. J Clin Ethics. March 2010; 21(1): 86-8. PMID. Retrieved 23 April 2020.

• Svoboda, J. Steven (2010). “Three-Fourths Were Abnormal”—Misha’s Case, Sick Societies, and the Law, arclaw. Retrieved 23 April 2020.

• https://epdf.pub/genital-autonomy-protecting-personal-choice.html