15,601
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
}}</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
→Commentary on Boldt v. Boldt: Delete inaccurate comment; Wikify.
|format=
|quote=
}}</ref>
</blockquote>
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
|url=http://www.nocirc.org/publish/2009nocirc_newsletter.pdf
|title=2009 NOCIRC Annual Newsletter