15,638
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add text.
'''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.
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 |url=https://arclaw.org.customers.tigertech.net/wp-content/uploads/Svoboda-Three-Fourths-Were-Abnormal-Mishas-Case-Sick-Societies-and-the-Law-Denniston-Milos-Hodges-Genital-Autonomy-Protecting-Personal-Choice-2010.pdf |archived= |title=“Three-Fourths Were Abnormal”—Misha’s Case, Sick Societies, and the Law |trans-title= |language= |last=Svoboda |first=J. Steven |author-link=J. Steven Svoboda |publisher= |website=arclaw |date=2010 |accessdate=2020-04-23 |format= |quote=}}</ref>
His mother, Lia Boldt, filed suit in the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/jackson/Pages/default.aspx Jackson County Circuit Court] for a an injunction to prohibit the circumcision ann for change of custody, which was denied (No. 98-2318-D(3)), however the court granted an 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].<ref name="svoboda2010" /> The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected Lia Boldt's appeal. She then appealed to the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/appellate/supreme/Pages/default.aspx Oregon Supreme Court] (ORS) 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<ref name="docbrief1">{{REFdocument |title=BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE, DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION,IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION FOR REVIEW |url=https://pool.intactiwiki.org/images/2007-04_BoldtReviewBrief.pdf |contribution= |last=Geisheker |first=John V. |publisher=Doctors Opposing Circumcision |format=PDF |date=2007-04 |accessdate=2020-04-22}}</ref> to help the Court understand why it should accept the case.
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.
|quote=
}}
* https://epdf.pub/genital-autonomy-protecting-personal-choice.html
{{REF}}