Changes

DOC intervened in the Oregon case of ''[[Boldt vs Boldt]]'', which technically was a child custody case, but actually about parental power to circumcise at will, by filing two ''amicus curiae'' educational briefs to help the court. As a result of DOC's intervention, the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx| Oregon Supreme Court] remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to determine the child's wishes regarding [[circumcision]].<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/835348/marriage-of-boldt/| In the Matter of the Marriage of James H. Boldt]. [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/835348/marriage-of-boldt/ 176 P.3d 388 (SC Oregon 2008)].</ref> DOC's intervention was cited by the court in its written opinion. The trial court determined that the child did not want to be [[circumcised ]] and custody was changed from the father to the mother. This landmark case received critical comment in the medical ethics literature.<ref>{{REFweb