15,508
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Legal proceedings: add citation.
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 stipulated custody order provides:<blockquote>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.
}}</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.
[[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]].