Difference between revisions of "Boldt v. Boldt"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Add text.)
(Add text.)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
}}</ref>
 
}}</ref>
  
−
His mother, Lia Boldt, filed suit in the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/jackson/Pages/default.aspx 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 [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/coa/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Court of Appeals].<ref name="svoboda2010" />
+
His mother, Lia Boldt, filed suit in the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/jackson/Pages/default.aspx 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 [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/coa/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Court of Appeals] (OCA).<ref name="svoboda2010" />
  
−
The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected Lia Boldt's appeal. She then appealed to the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx 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. The brief stated in part:
+
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 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. 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 36: Line 36:
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
  
−
After the ORS granted certiorari, DOC submitted a second ''amicus curiae'' brief to address the merits of the case.
+
After the OSC granted certiorari, DOC submitted a second ''amicus curiae'' brief to address the merits of the case. That second brief, in summation, stated:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
There is no basis on which the father can hope to prevail in the face of overwhelming protections offered to Misha/Jimmy by the Washington, Oregon, and U.S. Constitutions, and moreover, in face of the protections offered by international treaties, in particular, the ICCPR. The Supreme Court has stated that "a child, merely on account of his minority, is not beyond the protection of the Constitution" There are no material facts at dispute that require further hearings on the child’s fundamental rights.<ref name="docbrief2">{{REFdocument
 +
|title=BRIEF ON  THE MERITS OF ''AMICUS CURIAE'', DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION
 +
|url=https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-07-31_BoldtAmicusBriefMerits.pdf
 +
|contribution=
 +
|last=Geisheker
 +
|first=John
 +
|publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision
 +
|format=PDF
 +
|date=2007-07
 +
|accessdate=2020-04-23
 +
}}</ref>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
When the OSC eventually ruled in January 2008, it reversed the decision of the trial court, reversed the decision of the OCA, and remanded the case to the Jackson County Circuit Court with instructions to determine the boys wishes regarding circumcision. The opinion stated:
 +
<blockquote>
 +
However, in this case, mother has averred in her affidavit that M objects to the circumcision. In our view, at age 12, M's attitude regarding circumcision, though not conclusive of the custody issue presented here, is a fact necessary to the determination of whether mother has asserted a colorable claim of a change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing concerning whether to change custody. That is so because forcing M at age 12 to undergo the circumcision against his will could seriously affect the relationship between M and father, and could have a pronounced effect on father's capability to properly care for M. … Thus, if mother's assertions are verified the trial court would be entitled to reconsider custody. As to that inquiry, however, we think that no decision should be made without some assessment of M's true state of mind. That conclusion dictates the outcome here.
 +
 
 +
We remand the case to the trial court with instructions to resolve the factual issue whether M agrees or objects to the circumcision. In order to resolve that question, the trial court may choose to determine M's state of mind utilizing means available to it under the relevant provisions of ORS 107.425. If the trial court finds that M agrees to be circumcised, the court shall enter an order denying mother's motions. If, however, the trial court finds that M opposes the circumcision, it must then determine whether M's opposition to the circumcision will affect father's ability to properly care for M. And, if necessary, the trial court then can determine whether it is in M's best interests to retain the existing custody arrangement, whether other conditions should be imposed on father's continued custody of M, or change custody from father to mother.<ref name="osc2008">{{REFdocument
 +
|title=Boldt and Boldt, (CC No. 98-2318-D(3); CA A126175; SC S054714)
 +
|url= https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2008/s054714.html
 +
|contribution=
 +
|last=
 +
|first=
 +
|publisher=Oregon Supreme Court
 +
|format=
 +
|date=2008-01-25
 +
|accessdate=2020-04-19
 +
}}</ref>
 +
</blockquote>
 +
 
 +
The father, James Boldt, then appealed the decision of the OSC to the United States Supreme Court, however writ of certiorari was denied.<ref>No.  07–1348. Boldt v. Boldt. Sup. Ct. Ore.  Certiorari  de­nied. 555 US 814 Reported below: 344 Ore. 1, 176 P. 3d 388. (2008).</ref>
  
 
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.
 
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.
Line 80: Line 112:
 
}}
 
}}
  
−
* No.  07–1348. Boldt v. Boldt. Sup. Ct. Ore.  Certiorari  de­nied. 555 US 814 Reported below: 344 Ore. 1, 176 P. 3d 388. (2008)
+
* No.  07–1348. Boldt v. Boldt. Sup. Ct. Ore.  Certiorari  de­nied. 555 US 814 Reported below: 344 Ore. 1, 176 P. 3d 388. (2008).
  
 
* {{REFweb
 
* {{REFweb

Revision as of 13:54, 24 April 2020

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.[1]

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 (OCA).[1]

The OCA rejected Lia Boldt's appeal. She then appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) 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. The brief stated in part:

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.[2]

After the OSC granted certiorari, DOC submitted a second amicus curiae brief to address the merits of the case. That second brief, in summation, stated:

There is no basis on which the father can hope to prevail in the face of overwhelming protections offered to Misha/Jimmy by the Washington, Oregon, and U.S. Constitutions, and moreover, in face of the protections offered by international treaties, in particular, the ICCPR. The Supreme Court has stated that "a child, merely on account of his minority, is not beyond the protection of the Constitution" There are no material facts at dispute that require further hearings on the child’s fundamental rights.[3]

When the OSC eventually ruled in January 2008, it reversed the decision of the trial court, reversed the decision of the OCA, and remanded the case to the Jackson County Circuit Court with instructions to determine the boys wishes regarding circumcision. The opinion stated:

However, in this case, mother has averred in her affidavit that M objects to the circumcision. In our view, at age 12, M's attitude regarding circumcision, though not conclusive of the custody issue presented here, is a fact necessary to the determination of whether mother has asserted a colorable claim of a change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing concerning whether to change custody. That is so because forcing M at age 12 to undergo the circumcision against his will could seriously affect the relationship between M and father, and could have a pronounced effect on father's capability to properly care for M. … Thus, if mother's assertions are verified the trial court would be entitled to reconsider custody. As to that inquiry, however, we think that no decision should be made without some assessment of M's true state of mind. That conclusion dictates the outcome here.

We remand the case to the trial court with instructions to resolve the factual issue whether M agrees or objects to the circumcision. In order to resolve that question, the trial court may choose to determine M's state of mind utilizing means available to it under the relevant provisions of ORS 107.425. If the trial court finds that M agrees to be circumcised, the court shall enter an order denying mother's motions. If, however, the trial court finds that M opposes the circumcision, it must then determine whether M's opposition to the circumcision will affect father's ability to properly care for M. And, if necessary, the trial court then can determine whether it is in M's best interests to retain the existing custody arrangement, whether other conditions should be imposed on father's continued custody of M, or change custody from father to mother.[4]

The father, James Boldt, then appealed the decision of the OSC to the United States Supreme Court, however writ of certiorari was denied.[5]

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

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

References

  1. ↑ a b REFweb Svoboda, J. Steven (2010). “Three-Fourths Were Abnormal”—Misha’s Case, Sick Societies, and the Law, arclaw. Retrieved 23 April 2020.
  2. ↑ REFdocument Geisheker, John V.: BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE, DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION,IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW PDF, Doctors Opposing Circumcision. (April 2007). Retrieved 22 April 2020.
  3. ↑ REFdocument Geisheker, John: BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF AMICUS CURIAE, DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION PDF, Doctors Opposing Circumcision. (July 2007). Retrieved 23 April 2020.
  4. ↑ REFdocument Boldt and Boldt, (CC No. 98-2318-D(3); CA A126175; SC S054714), Oregon Supreme Court. (25 January 2008). Retrieved 19 April 2020.
  5. ↑ No. 07–1348. Boldt v. Boldt. Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari de­nied. 555 US 814 Reported below: 344 Ore. 1, 176 P. 3d 388. (2008).
Retrieved from "https://en.intactiwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Boldt_v._Boldt&oldid=13960"