15,641
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add information on beginnings, quote by Geisheker; comment by Diekema.
{{Construction Site}}
'''Boldt v. Boldt''' is formally a child custody case from the state of Oregon, however it actually is about the proposed non-therapeutic [[circumcision]] of a boy for the father's religious belief.
On Sunday, May 30, 2004, the mother, Russian-born Mrs. Lia Nikolaevna Boldt, learned from her son, nine-year-old Misha/Jimmy, that the custodial father, James Harlan Boldt, was planning on having him circumcised as part of the father's plan to convert the child from the Russian Orthodox faith to the Jewish faith.<ref>{{REFdocument
|title= Appelant's Brief and Excerpt of Record
|url=
|contribution=
|last=Patrick
|first=Clayton
|publisher=
|format=
|date=2005-08-10
|accessdate=
}}</ref>
==Legal proceedings==
}}</ref>
John Geisheker commented:
<blockquote>
"Misha went home with his father the day of the final appearance before Judge Greif on April 22. No one knows what transpired later between the father and the son who had bravely defied him -at age 14- in the Judge's chambers, and before the many attendees at the hearing."
</blockquote>
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" />
There has been a fair amount of commentary on this case.
Dougglas Diekema, a pediatric medical ethicist commented:
<blockquote>
The fact that Jimmy's father had sole custody does not eliminate the mother's ethical right and obligation to look after the welfare of her son. While the mother may not have legal decision-making authority, that legal determination does not appear to be related either to a lack of interest in her son's welfare or an inability to carry out that role. Jimmy is her son, and she has an interest in seeing his welfare protected. Whether or not she has legal rights, I would be very reluctant to perform an elective procedure for cultural or religious reasons without the permission of both parents and the unambiguous assent of Jimmy himself. Neither appears to be present in the case as it presented to the courts.<ref name="diekema2009">{{REFjournal
|last=Diekema
|first=Doug
|author-link=Douglas Diekema
|etal=no
|title=Boldt v. Boldt: A pediatric ethics perspective
|trans-title=
|language=
|journal=J Clin Ethics
|location=
|date=2009-09
|volume=20
|issue=3
|pages=251-7
|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19845198
|archived=
|quote=
|pubmedID=19845198
|pubmedCID=
|DOI=
|accessdate=2020-04-25
}}</ref>
</blockquote>
==Sequellae==