17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The fatherIn September 2009, facing an evidentiary a custody hearing that he was likely to lose, the father voluntarily surrendered agreed to give up physical custody of Mishato 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. |author-link=John V. Geisheker |etal=no |title=Where is the voice of the man the child will become? |trans-title= |language= |journal=J Clin Ethics |location= |date=2010-03 |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=86-8 |url=https://Jimmypool.intactiwiki. org/images/2010-03_JCE21-1_Geisheker-1.pdf |archived= |quote= |pubmedID=20465080 |pubmedCID= |DOI= |accessdate=2020-04-23}}</ref>
Add sections.
{{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.
==Legal proceedings==
The case started in 2004 when James Boldt, a divorced father, who had custody of his nine-year-old son, decided to convert from Russian Orthodox to Judaism and wanted to have his son circumcised in accordance with the [[Abrahamic covenant]]. The son, however, had not converted and did not want to be circumcised. He was supported by his mother in his desire for genital integrity.<ref name="svoboda2010">{{REFweb
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" />
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.
[[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]].
==Commentary on Boldt v. Boldt==
{{LINKS}}