Boldt v. Boldt: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

'''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.

'''Boldt v. Boldt''' is formally a child custody case from the state of Oregon, however it actually is about the proposed non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of a boy for the father's religious belief.

==Legal proceedings==

Line 83:

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 to his mother,with court approval. The child’s proposed circumcision, at one point only hours away, remains judicially prohibited.<ref name="geisheker2010">{{REFjournal

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 child’s proposed circumcision, at one point only hours away, remains judicially prohibited.<ref name="geisheker2010">{{REFjournal

|last=Geisheker

|first=John V.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Construction Site}}
-'''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.
+'''Boldt v. Boldt''' is formally a child custody case from the state of Oregon, however it actually is about the proposed non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of a boy for the father's religious belief.
 ==Legal proceedings==
@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 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 to his mother,with court approval. The child’s proposed circumcision, at one point only hours away, remains judicially prohibited.<ref name="geisheker2010">{{REFjournal
+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 child’s proposed circumcision, at one point only hours away, remains judicially prohibited.<ref name="geisheker2010">{{REFjournal
   |last=Geisheker
   |first=John V.