17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add text.
}}</ref>
His mother, Lia Boldt, filed suit in the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/jackson/Pages/default.aspx Jackson County Circuit Court] for an injunction to prohibit the circumcision ann for change of custody, which was denied (No. 98-2318-D(3)), however the court granted the injunction against the proposed circumcision. Lia Boldt then filed an appeal of the circuit court's decision with the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/coa/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Court of Appeals](OCA).<ref name="svoboda2010" />
The Oregon Court of Appeals OCA rejected Lia Boldt's appeal. She then appealed to the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Supreme Court] (ORSOSC) in 2007. It was at that point that [[Doctors Opposing Circumcision]] entered the case. Doctors Opposing Circumcision realized that the ORS needed information about circumcision and about the child's rights under Constitutional and international human rights law, so it filed an ''amicus curaie'' brief to help the Court understand why it should accept the case. The brief stated in part:
<blockquote>
Mikhail (Misha/Jimmy) James Boldt, (hereinafter ‘Misha/Jimmy’) is a minor who is legally incompetent. Nevertheless, Misha/Jimmy is a person with rights of his own. As a minor he deserves special protection under Oregon, and international law. Misha/Jimmy has an unalienable right to protection and security of his person, and the Courts of the State of Oregon have a corresponding obligation to protect his rights independent from and even despite the wishes of a parent who might endanger the child unnecessarily.<ref name="docbrief1">{{REFdocument
</blockquote>
After the ORS OSC granted certiorari, DOC submitted a second ''amicus curiae'' brief to address the merits of the case.That second brief, in summation, stated:<blockquote>There is no basis on which the father can hope to prevail in the face of overwhelming protections offered to Misha/Jimmy by the Washington, Oregon, and U.S. Constitutions, and moreover, in face of the protections offered by international treaties, in particular, the ICCPR. The Supreme Court has stated that "a child, merely on account of his minority, is not beyond the protection of the Constitution" There are no material facts at dispute that require further hearings on the child’s fundamental rights.<ref name="docbrief2">{{REFdocument |title=BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF ''AMICUS CURIAE'', DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION |url=https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-07-31_BoldtAmicusBriefMerits.pdf |contribution= |last=Geisheker |first=John |publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision |format=PDF |date=2007-07 |accessdate=2020-04-23}}</ref> </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:<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. We remand the case to the trial court with instructions to resolve the factual issue whether M agrees or objects to the circumcision. In order to resolve that question, the trial court may choose to determine M's state of mind utilizing means available to it under the relevant provisions of ORS 107.425. If the trial court finds that M agrees to be circumcised, the court shall enter an order denying mother's motions. If, however, the trial court finds that M opposes the circumcision, it must then determine whether M's opposition to the circumcision will affect father's ability to properly care for M. And, if necessary, the trial court then can determine whether it is in M's best interests to retain the existing custody arrangement, whether other conditions should be imposed on father's continued custody of M, or change custody from father to mother.<ref name="osc2008">{{REFdocument |title=Boldt and Boldt, (CC No. 98-2318-D(3); CA A126175; SC S054714) |url= https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/2008/s054714.html |contribution= |last= |first= |publisher=Oregon Supreme Court |format= |date=2008-01-25 |accessdate=2020-04-19}}</ref></blockquote> The father, James Boldt, then appealed the decision of the OSC to the United States Supreme Court, however writ of certiorari was denied.<ref>No. 07–1348. Boldt v. Boldt. Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied. 555 US 814 Reported below: 344 Ore. 1, 176 P. 3d 388. (2008).</ref>
A long-running legal case in the United States, finally resolved in 2009, when courts in the state of Oregon ruled that a parent could not compel a child over which he had custody to get circumcised against the boy's will. The case is of interest in its potential to limit the power of parents to impose circumcision and similar physical alterations on children and in its implicit recognition that children have their own rights – to physical integrity and freedom of conscience and religion – independently of their parents' belief.
}}
* No. 07–1348. Boldt v. Boldt. Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied. 555 US 814 Reported below: 344 Ore. 1, 176 P. 3d 388. (2008).
* {{REFweb