Changes

DOC intervened in the Oregon case of ''[[Boldt vs Boldt]]'', which technically was a child custody case, but actually about parental power to circumcise at will, by filing two ''amicus curiae'' educational briefs to help the court. As a result of DOC's intervention, the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx| Oregon Supreme Court] remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to determine the child's wishes regarding circumcision.<ref>[https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/835348/marriage-of-boldt/| In the Matter of the Marriage of James H. Boldt]. [https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/835348/marriage-of-boldt/ 176 P.3d 388 (SC Oregon 2008)].</ref> DOC's intervention was cited by the court in its written opinion. The trial court determined that the child did not want to be circumcised and custody was changed from the father to the mother. This landmark case received critical comment in the medical ethics literature.<ref>{{REFweb