15,638
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add text.
His mother, Lia Boldt, filed suit in the [https://www.courts.oregon.gov/courts/jackson/Pages/default.aspx Jackson County Circuit Court] for an injunction to prohibit the circumcision ann for change of custody, which was denied (No. 98-2318-D(3)), however the court granted 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'' briefto help the Court understand why it should accept the case. The brief stated in part:<blockquote>Mikhail (Misha/Jimmy) James Boldt, (hereinafter ‘Misha/Jimmy’) is a minor who is legally incompetent. Nevertheless, Misha/Jimmy is a person with rights of his own. As a minor he deserves special protection under Oregon, and international law. Misha/Jimmy has an unalienable right to protection and security of his person, and the Courts of the State of Oregon have a corresponding obligation to protect his rights independent from and even despite the wishes of a parent who might endanger the child unnecessarily.<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
|date=2007-04
|accessdate=2020-04-22
}}</ref> </blockquote> After the ORS granted certiorari, DOC submitted a second ''amicus curiae'' brief to help address the Court understand why it should accept merits of 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.