Boldt v. Boldt: Difference between revisions

Line 168:

|format=

|quote=

~~}}</ref>~~

~~</blockquote>~~

~~Yeshiva World (2008) commented:~~

~~<blockquote>~~

The groups added that while the Oregon Supreme Court had taken note of conflicting parental claims about the 12-year-old child’s wishes, it did not hold those wishes to be determinative. Rather, it charged the trial court with resolving whether, in fact, the child’s wishes were in opposition to the father’s, and if so, whether overriding them would adversely affect the child’s relations with his father. That is, the groups noted, a holding tailored to the unusual circumstances of this case, and does not materially weaken the impact of the court’s decision allowing parents to circumcise their children.<ref name="yeshiva2008">{{REFweb

~~|url=https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/14103/ou-welcomes-oregon-court-ruling-in-circumcision-case.html~~

~~|title=OU Welcomes Oregon Court Ruling in Circumcision Case~~

~~|last=~~

~~|first=~~

~~|accessdate=2020-04-27~~

}}</ref>

</blockquote>

Line 184:

Line 173:

The 2009 NOCIRC Annual Newsletter commented:

The US Supreme Court in October turned down a father’s petition in '' Boldt v Boldt''. The boy’s father, who converted to Judaism and wants his son circumcised, was unhappy with the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court to determine the wishes of the child, and appealed to the US Supreme Court, alleging the child’s wishes are irrelevant. Fortunately, the right of the boy was paramount in the court’s decision.<ref>{{REFweb

The US Supreme Court in October turned down a father’s petition in '' Boldt v Boldt''. The boy’s father, who converted to [[Judaism]] and wants his son circumcised, was unhappy with the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court to determine the wishes of the child, and appealed to the US Supreme Court, alleging the child’s wishes are irrelevant. Fortunately, the right of the boy was paramount in the court’s decision.<ref>{{REFweb

|url=http://www.nocirc.org/publish/2009nocirc_newsletter.pdf

|title=2009 NOCIRC Annual Newsletter

@@ Line 168: / Line 168: @@
   |format=
   |quote=
-}}</ref>
-</blockquote>
-Yeshiva World (2008) commented:
-<blockquote>
-The groups added that while the Oregon Supreme Court had taken note of conflicting parental claims about the 12-year-old child’s wishes, it did not hold those wishes to be determinative. Rather, it charged the trial court with resolving whether, in fact, the child’s wishes were in opposition to the father’s, and if so, whether overriding them would adversely affect the child’s relations with his father. That is, the groups noted, a holding tailored to the unusual circumstances of this case, and does not materially weaken the impact of the court’s decision allowing parents to circumcise their children.<ref name="yeshiva2008">{{REFweb
- |url=https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/news/general/14103/ou-welcomes-oregon-court-ruling-in-circumcision-case.html
- |title=OU Welcomes Oregon Court Ruling in Circumcision Case
- |last=
- |first=
- |accessdate=2020-04-27
 }}</ref>
 </blockquote>
@@ Line 184: / Line 173: @@
 The 2009 NOCIRC Annual Newsletter commented:
 <blockquote>
-The US Supreme Court in October turned down a father’s petition  in '' Boldt  v  Boldt''.  The  boy’s  father,  who  converted  to  Judaism  and  wants  his  son  circumcised,  was unhappy with the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court to  determine  the  wishes  of  the  child,  and  appealed  to the  US  Supreme  Court,  alleging  the  child’s  wishes  are irrelevant.  Fortunately,  the  right  of  the  boy  was  paramount in the court’s decision.<ref>{{REFweb
+The US Supreme Court in October turned down a father’s petition  in '' Boldt  v  Boldt''.  The  boy’s  father,  who  converted  to  [[Judaism]]  and  wants  his  son  circumcised,  was unhappy with the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court to  determine  the  wishes  of  the  child,  and  appealed  to the  US  Supreme  Court,  alleging  the  child’s  wishes  are irrelevant.  Fortunately,  the  right  of  the  boy  was  paramount in the court’s decision.<ref>{{REFweb
   |url=http://www.nocirc.org/publish/2009nocirc_newsletter.pdf
   |title=2009 NOCIRC Annual Newsletter