Boldt v. Boldt: Difference between revisions

Line 103:

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 (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

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 stipulated custody order provides:

1. Mother and Father shall have joint legal custody of the minor child.<br>

2. The minor child shall have his primary residence with Mother according to the joint parenting plan attached herein as Exhibit 1.<ref>{{REFdocument

|title=__Stipulated Supplemental Parenting Order

|url=

|contribution=

|last=Grief

|first=Lisa

|publisher=Jackson County Circuit Court

|format=

|date=2009-09-29

|accessdate=

}}</ref>

</blockquote>

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

|last=Geisheker

|first=John V.

Line 126:

Line 141:

}}</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 [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| 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.

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 [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| 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 103: / Line 103: @@
 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 (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
+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 stipulated custody order provides:
+<blockquote>
+. Mother and Father shall have joint legal custody of the minor child.<br>
+. The minor child shall have his primary residence with Mother according to the joint parenting plan attached herein as Exhibit 1.<ref>{{REFdocument
+ |title=__Stipulated Supplemental Parenting Order
+ |url=
+ |contribution=
+ |last=Grief
+ |first=Lisa
+ |publisher=Jackson County Circuit Court
+ |format=
+ |date=2009-09-29
+ |accessdate=
+}}</ref>
+</blockquote>
+The child’s proposed circumcision, at one point only hours away, remains judicially prohibited.<ref name="geisheker2010">{{REFjournal
   |last=Geisheker
   |first=John V.
@@ Line 126: / Line 141: @@
 }}</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 [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| 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.
+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 [[Foreskin#Physiological_functions| 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]].