Boldt v. Boldt: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Commentary on Boldt v. Boldt: Add comment. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) →Commentary on Boldt v. Boldt: Add Geisheker. |
||
| Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
|accessdate=2020-04-25 | |accessdate=2020-04-25 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
</blockquote> | |||
John Geisheker (2010) observed: | |||
<blockquote> | |||
The child’s testimony showed courage and took a risk that he would be ignored, as children too often are. Because it would have been far easier for Misha to accede to his custodial father’s wishes than to defy him in public, perhaps it can be assumed his testimony was truthful. Indeed, the child returned home with his father that day. | |||
None of the amicus groups that supported the father’s legal position all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — and back to Oregon — appeared at the hearing on 22 April 2009 to hear the child's actual “voice” (nor did they express any written sympathy for the plight of the child throughout the proceedings. | |||
… | |||
In closing: children who are welcomed, gently, into their birth communities have been given the gift of Joel Feinberg’s “open future.” They may embrace their community or they may eventually drift away; there is no way to tell, in advance, what they will choose. But, importantly, their options are left open, and none of their body parts will have been surgically modified or removed —without their consent — prior to the moment when we will be able to hear the voices of the adults they will become. | |||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||