Boldt v. Boldt: Difference between revisions

Line 53:

</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:

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 boy's 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.

Line 106:

}}</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 functional body part from his son's body. The father's supporters, 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 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]].

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 </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:
+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 boy's 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.
@@ Line 106: / Line 106: @@
 }}</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 functional body part from his son's body. The father's supporters, 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 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]].