# A "Misha" Case Update



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

As some of you have read, Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) has been helping defend a boy, now a 13 year old boy, whose father is trying to have circumcised against the wishes of his mother; the mother and father are divorced, the father has legal custody, the boy has told the mother he does not want to be circumcised but is afraid of his father, and I'll let you ferret out the reason why the father is seeking to circumcise the boy.

In April 2007, DOC filed an amicus curia brief in the Boldt case with exhibits attached in support of the petition for review and on June 19, 2007, the Oregon Supreme Court decided to hear the mother's appeal and set oral arguments for November 6, 2007 at 11:15am. DOC then filed a second amicus curiae brief on the merits of the case in July 2007. Up to this point lower courts have been ruling in favor of the father; however, in January, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a less than optimal judgment which decreed that the lower courts should have considered the boys wishes in making its decision. While it could have been worse, part of the reason it was not optimal was, by my understanding, if the boy refused they would still have to have a hearing to determine *if* the boy could refuse over the wishes of the father. Doesn't make any sense to me perhaps I am a little off in my interpretation; for a good critique of the judgment head on over to the Rolling Doughnut.

In any event, this was supposed to be kicked back to the lower court where presumably the boy would get his say. However, apparently that was too much for the father to handle. Instead the SOB has filed a petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in an attempt to overrule the judgment of the the Oregon Supreme Court. This does not mean the case will be heard; what it means is the father is petitioning the court to decide whether or not they will hear an appeal, appeals to the USSC are not (usually) automatic. If four judges decide they want to hear the case then it would be scheduled. This does not mean they believe the OSC ruled incorrectly it just means they will hear the case. There is a note about this over at circumsitions too. Just thought you all would like to know.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

Heartbreaking that this father is so set on causing his son pain


----------



## Fyrestorm (Feb 14, 2006)

Would it make me a really terrible person if I wished harm to the father so this little boy could live in peace with his body intact?


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Fyrestorm* 
Would it make me a really terrible person if I wished harm to the father so this little boy could live in peace with his body intact?

No.


----------



## A&A (Apr 5, 2004)

Whether or not he gets circumcised, that boy as an adult will want NOTHING. TO DO. WITH. HIS. FATHER for making him go through this.


----------



## paquerette (Oct 16, 2004)

So, if the Supreme Court does agree to hear the case, will it set a national precedent? Will they be deciding upon all the aspects of the original case, or just upon the aspect of whether the lower Oregon courts should have interviewed the boy?


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paquerette* 
So, if the Supreme Court does agree to hear the case, will it set a national precedent? Will they be deciding upon all the aspects of the original case, or just upon the aspect of whether the lower Oregon courts should have interviewed the boy?

I am not sure. As IANAL, I don't understand the finer points of law. Perhaps if Dave2GA sees this he might be able to elaborate in more detail. I suspect we would have to start by reading the writ which I haven't seen yet, I don't know if they are publicly available, if I find it I will post it. If I had to guess, I would presume that they would be ruling on whether it was proper for the SCO to remand the case back to the appellate court with the instructions to consider the wishes of the boy and not necessarily on the original facts of the case.

ETA: I am not sure what that precedent would be since I don't know on what basis he is filing the writ.

ETAA: Not related to following up this poster but I just wanted to say again this guy is an a**. What is he afraid of going back to the lower court? (A rhetorical question.) Now I know for sure he is doing this completely out of spite.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

I'm not a lawyer of course but my belief is that James Boldt can only appeal the decision of The Oregon Supreme Court. To do so, he has to show that there was a procedural or factual error or omission or a conflict with the US Constitution. Only being peripheriferly familiar with the case, it would appear that he is appealing whether Misha has a say in the modification of his body or not. I suspect he will use the right of religious freedom as an argument that he has the decision making right instead of Misha.

I'm not sure if going to the Supreme Court of the United States is a good thing or a bad thing. The Justices have inherent biases regardless of their attempts to be neutral and those biases can affect their decisions. I'm just not sure we have changed the culture to the point we can be at all confident of a favorable decision. The danger of an unfavorable decision is that any decision may prevent the Supremes from re-visiting the case again for decades. Just look at Roe vs. Wade. The decision was made in 1972 (?) and the Court has steadfastly refused to visit the issue again despite heavy lobbying. That's 38 years!

At this time, I think we will be safer if The Supremes refuse to hear this case. I just don't think the time is right to get a favorable decision with any certainty. I think we have a lot more work to do changing the culture and the perceptions before we go to The Supremes.

Frank


----------



## Nathan1097 (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frankly Speaking* 
Just look at Roe vs. Wade. The decision was made in 1972 (?) and the Court has steadfastly refused to visit the issue again despite heavy lobbying. That's 38 years! Frank

This has nothing to do with circ or RvW, but I must contest one little bit- 1972 was only 36 years ago. (No biggie- just don't make me two years older than I already am!







)


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frankly Speaking* 
I'm not a lawyer of course but my belief is that James Boldt can only appeal the decision of The Oregon Supreme Court.
Frank

The thing is he didn't really lose the case they were simply instructed to go back to the appellate and take the boys wishes into consideration I am surprised this happened and it only shows he doesn't care what the boy thinks. If he knew his son would want the circumcision Misha would say so at the appellate court and it would be done.


----------



## Nathan1097 (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jwhispers* 
The thing is he didn't really lose the case they were simply instructed to go back to the appellate and take the boys wishes into consideration I am surprised this happened and only shows he doesn't care what the boy thinks. If he knew his son would want the circumcision Misha would say so at the appellate court and it would be done.


Having a 10 1/2 year old myself, I can see this dad having a H3ll of a time with Misha, should the circ be performed. That is, SHOULD he stay in his custody. Either way, the picture doesn't look good into the future.


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nathan1097* 
Having a 10 1/2 year old myself, I can see this dad having a H3ll of a time with Misha, should the circ be performed. That is, SHOULD he stay in his custody. Either way, the picture doesn't look good into the future.

Actually, if this grinds its way to the bitter end the kid could be at least 15 before it is resolved. And the older he gets the harder it would be to believe the court would allow him to be forcibly circumcised. But this is the US so who knows.

ETA: For perspective, IFIRC, he was only 8 or 9 when this started.


----------



## bluetoes (May 12, 2007)

This father, I just don't get him. Fights over a clean room can ruin a relationship for years - something that makes a broken marriage even more difficult and involves lawyers and the high court - I can only imagine. Does he hate his ex-wife so much?


----------



## tamagotchi (Oct 16, 2005)

The longer this goes on, the more bizarre it is. If he has turned 13, Jewish law would consider him an adult, so he can't be converted against his wishes. Is Misha saying that he wants to convert (and be circumcised), but his mother is arguing that he doesn't really want to?


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tamagotchi* 
The longer this goes on, the more bizarre it is. If he has turned 13, Jewish law would consider him an adult, so he can't be converted against his wishes. Is Misha saying that he wants to convert (and be circumcised), but his mother is arguing that he doesn't really want to?

To be honest it isn't clear what Misha is saying. The father says he wants it the mother says he doesn't and is afraid to confront his father. My money is on the mother. If Misha wanted to go through with this, and the father knew that, he could have gone back to the applet court confident that Misha would say as much.


----------



## tamagotchi (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jwhispers* 
To be honest it isn't clear what Misha is saying. The father says he wants it the mother says he doesn't and is afraid to confront his father. My money is on the mother. If Misha wanted to go through with this, and the father knew that, he could have gone back to the applet court confident that Misha would say as much.

To be converted at age 13 though, Misha would have to go into a room with 3 rabbis (without his father there) and convince all of them that he wants to be converted of his own accord. So is Misha willing to go before the rabbis and argue that he wants to be converted, in which case I would think he would be willing to stand up in court and say that too?

Or is his father trying to force him to be circumcised even though he wouldn't go through with the conversion? Having read about this case before, I wouldn't put it past Misha's father to do that. It seemed to me that he was mostly trying to get Misha circumcised in order to make Misha's mother mad.


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tamagotchi* 
To be converted at age 13 though, Misha would have to go into a room with 3 rabbis (without his father there) and convince all of them that he wants to be converted of his own accord. So is Misha willing to go before the rabbis and argue that he wants to be converted, in which case I would think he would be willing to stand up in court and say that too?

Or is his father trying to force him to be circumcised even though he wouldn't go through with the conversion? Having read about this case before, I wouldn't put it past Misha's father to do that. It seemed to me that he was mostly trying to get Misha circumcised in order to make Misha's mother mad.









What an interesting point. Didn't know about the rules according to Judaism. It makes it sound (to me, anyways) like Rabbis would advocate for him in court, given that he wishes to stay intact.

ETA: The father is being abusive. Because of this, the child should be removed from the fathers custody and the child placed in his mother's care.


----------



## fruitful womb (Nov 20, 2004)

At 13 a child could exercise his constitutional freedoms... hmmmm

Wouldn't that open the doors for the children at the compound to "exercise their constitutional freedoms" when they're 13?

Not that I want that to happen.

Just a thought.

ETA: We should be preserving their constitutional freedoms, (meaning there is no physical harm done to a child) so they can fully express their freedom when they've reached adulthood.


----------



## Ensemble (Apr 9, 2008)

The Jewish groups that supported him with legal briefs to the Oregon Supreme court said they were happy with the ruling. They were concerned that the result could have impacted religious circumcision of infants. If accepted, this appeal could only re-open that concern, so presumably they will not support this bid to go to the Supreme Court. This ass-hat should be on his own with this petition.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Imagine if the Supreme Court did support the Father. Don't you think it might be a big wake up call to our laws, if people saw that 13-15 year old boy could be circumcised by force, and that it was all perfectly legal. Maybe people would think twice when doing it to their own children.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tamagotchi* 
Or is his father trying to force him to be circumcised even though he wouldn't go through with the conversion? Having read about this case before, I wouldn't put it past Misha's father to do that. It seemed to me that he was mostly trying to get Misha circumcised in order to make Misha's mother mad.









I think you have hit on the crux of the situation. If Misha were on board with the circumcision, he would have told his father, the father would have set the circumcision up and it would have been done. The mother would have found out about it only after the fact. I suspect James Boldt let the cat out of the bag either by telling Misha what his intent was or by having him meet with a rabbi who told him what was about to happen. I suspect Misha was alarmed and went to his mother who went to bat for him.

Just some sideline information, . . . James Boldt is a lawyer and is representing himself. Lia Boldt is not a lawyer and is only able to fight this out with the help of lawyers from Attorneys for the Rights of the Child who deal in circumcision issues and who are representing her and Misha at no or little cost.

Frank


----------



## mntnmom (Sep 21, 2006)

It might for some folks, but where I grew up, it would only reinforce the patriarchal dictatorship of the churh/society/home. They would hold it up as some badge of victory that even the Supreme Court could see the sense in imposing this on a "rebellious" teenager.(Yes, I'm from the American Bible Belt)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *perspective* 
Imagine if the Supreme Court did support the Father. Don't you think it might be a big wake up call to our laws, if people saw that 13-15 year old boy could be circumcised by force, and that it was all perfectly legal. Maybe people would think twice when doing it to their own children.


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:

Father also argued that the court lacked authority to grant mother's motions because (1) granting the motions would violate father's freedom of religion under the religion clauses of the United States and Oregon constitutions;
....

Quote:

However, in this case, mother has averred in her affidavit that M objects to the circumcision. (8) In our view, at age 12, *M's attitude regarding circumcision, though not conclusive of the custody issue presented here, is a fact necessary to the determination of whether mother has asserted a colorable claim of a change of circumstances sufficient to warrant a hearing concerning whether to change custody. That is so because forcing M at age 12 to undergo the circumcision against his will could seriously affect the relationship between M and father, and could have a pronounced effect on father's capability to properly care for M. See Greisamer, 276 Or at 400 (illustrating proposition).* Thus, if mother's assertions are verified the trial court would be entitled to reconsider custody. As to that inquiry, however, we think that no decision should be made without some assessment of M's true state of mind. That conclusion dictates the outcome here.

*We remand the case to the trial court with instructions to resolve the factual issue whether M agrees or objects to the circumcision.* In order to resolve that question, the trial court may choose to determine M's state of mind utilizing means available to it under the relevant provisions of ORS 107.425. (9) If the trial court finds that M agrees to be circumcised, the court shall enter an order denying mother's motions. *If, however, the trial court finds that M opposes the circumcision, it must then determine whether M's opposition to the circumcision will affect father's ability to properly care for M.* And, if necessary, the trial court then can determine whether it is in M's best interests to retain the existing custody arrangement, whether other conditions should be imposed on father's continued custody of M, or change custody from father to mother.
All the OSC asked was for the appellate court to consider the boy's opinion. So basically the father doesn't believe they need to have a evidentiary hearing to determine the boy's opinion (among other things).


----------



## Vito's Mommy (Jan 19, 2005)

I think it odd that this father is so obsessed with the appearance of his teenage son's penis. Freakin weirdo, imo.

You might just be right, it's all in spite. What a jerk.


----------



## Ann-Marita (Sep 20, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Frankly Speaking* 
. . . James Boldt is a lawyer and is representing himself.

Hm... Could the chance to argue in front of the USSC be a motivator? Maybe he thinks that this would be prestigious and would increase his business.


----------



## 00646 (Jan 18, 2008)

This man what kind of person is he?
He has no care in what kind of relationship he has with his son.
He doesn't care if this







their relationship.

And why is he so obsessed with his son's penis?
What a







.


----------



## ThreeBeans (Dec 2, 2006)

The guy is obviously an abusive freak.

Even if he wins his case, methinks he is going to have a tough time finding a surgeon willing to perform a circumcision on a teenager who doesn't want one or medically need one.


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ann-Marita* 
Hm... Could the chance to argue in front of the USSC be a motivator? Maybe he thinks that this would be prestigious and would increase his business.


I think not. Constitutional law is a very specialized area and most lawyers are not prepared or experienced in this area of law. Most would find a consultant lawyer to help prepare their case. In this case, it appears that he is desperate and is going it "on the cheap." Going to The Supreme Court would have no prestige if he loses his case and in most cases would not apply to his area of law expertise.

Frank


----------



## Frankly Speaking (May 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThreeBeans* 
The guy is obviously an abusive freak.

Even if he wins his case, methinks he is going to have a tough time finding a surgeon willing to perform a circumcision on a teenager who doesn't want one or medically need one.


I'll agree that he is abusive but he has also converted to a religion that demands circumcision. There will be plenty of doctors that will be willing to perform the circumcision even if Misha is screaming "NO!"

There was a similar case several years ago. That was the case of Ethan Azar. Ethan's mother did not want the circumcision but her husband, Ray insisted after their divorce. He was a member of a religion that demands circumcision. There was a hearing and the court found that Ray had the right to have Ethan circumcised. In these cases, there is a waiting period to give time for appeals but Ray violated the waiting period and had Ethan circumcised the next day by a doctor who was a member of that religion. The day after the circumcision, the doctor was on the internet bragging about it and flaunting that he had done it.

Frank

Frank


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *00646* 
This man what kind of person is he?
He has no care in what kind of relationship he has with his son.
He doesn't care if this







their relationship.

And why is he so obsessed with his son's penis?
What a







.

But when you think about it, all this situation is, is an extreme version of what many American Moms' and Dad's do everyday.

This guy wants to forcibly circumcise his son for HIS religious beliefs, no matter what the sons views are. Parents all over the US forcibly circumcise their sons all for THE PARENTS. He really is no different then any other american parent, its just his situation makes things more obvious.

In the end circumcision has nothing to do with what the boy wants (few seem to care about that) it is what the PARENTS want.

Its just in this case, everything is much more obvious because you can
clearly see the boy as his own person with his own ideas.

It is disgusting to me, that in my country we hold up, as a high moral, the importance of protecting little girls from genital alterations (because it goes against their basic rights, because we are not a third world nation)
Yet at the same time it is perfectly legal to take a 13 year old boy kicking and screaming and forcibly alter his genitals. They see nothing wrong with that. How blind people must be.


----------



## Calyxir (Apr 11, 2008)

:

There is no difference. Every day, boys are strapped down and their genitals mutilated against their will, the fact that they cannot resist or vocalise in language that anyone will take any notice of is irrelevant.

_That_ is why certain groups, who shall remain nameless, backed him to the hilt all the way up the courts. The right to mutilate a male child, of no matter what age, MUST, from their point of view, be preserved.


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

With the Dad trying to go to the Supreme Court, this just puts more "time on the clock" toward Misha being old enough to become an emancipated minor, totally free of the dad's authority.

FYI:
The dad's plan was to use an MD, not a religious circumciser, to do the procedure. Even though the dad's stated plan is "conversion".

If you Google the dad's name, you can see the mom and dad were in a legal battle when they first separated - over whether a "consensual" activity is grounds for a restraining order. The lawyer/father has been fighting everything possible for a long time.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SleeplessMommy* 
With the Dad trying to go to the Supreme Court, this just puts more "time on the clock" toward Misha being old enough to become an emancipated minor, totally free of the dad's authority.

FYI:
The dad's plan was to use an MD, not a religious circumciser, to do the procedure. Even though the dad's stated plan is "conversion".

If you Google the dad's name, you can see the mom and dad were in a legal battle when they first separated - over whether a "consensual" activity is grounds for a restraining order. The lawyer/father has been fighting everything possible for a long time.

How old was the kid when the parents first decided to break up?


----------



## armychicmkm (May 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *perspective* 
But when you think about it, all this situation is, is an extreme version of what many American Moms' and Dad's do everyday...... This guy wants to forcibly circumcise his son for HIS religious beliefs, no matter what the sons views are. Parents all over the US forcibly circumcise their sons all for THE PARENTS. He really is no different then any other american parent, its just his situation makes things more obvious.

Sorry, I gotta disagree. This case is by far worse than any parent circumcising a baby. So many parents circumcise their baby boys because that is all they know. Maybe "ignorance is no excuse" but I simply cannot lump in parents who are good people doing what they think is right and trying to what best for their child with a man who is being intentionally cruel to his 13 old son.


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *perspective* 
How old was the kid when the parents first decided to break up?

About 8 or 9 I think.


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Oh and there is a reasonable possibility that I will get a copy of the writ at some point in the near future. If I get it I'll find a way to share it for those who want to wade through it. I predict it will be long and wordy.


----------



## Pumpkinheadmommy (Nov 6, 2007)

I just found this:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1348.htm

It says a response is due by May 27, 2008. That's only 3 weeks away!


----------



## MoonJelly (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fruitful womb* 
ETA: The father is being abusive. Because of this, the child should be removed from the fathers custody and the child placed in his mother's care.

Yes, and there's a history (in whatever transcripts of the case I read a few months ago) of his prior abuse of the mother as well.


----------



## christifav (Nov 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *armychicmkm* 
Sorry, I gotta disagree. This case is by far worse than any parent circumcising a baby. So many parents circumcise their baby boys because that is all they know. Maybe "ignorance is no excuse" but I simply cannot lump in parents who are good people doing what they think is right and trying to what best for their child with a man who is being intentionally cruel to his 13 old son.

I understand what you are saying about parents doing what they think is best when they circ their infant, but if you have to take intention out of the situation in order to protect the babes. (and in this case, boy).

Many parents abuse their children b/c they "mean well", whether it is physical or emotional abuse, it is not right. The only thing that will protect children from "well meaning" parents is a change in the law.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Here is part of a quote from a interesting article on this whole case:

"Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, which is filing a friend-of-the-court brief in support of James Boldt. "We have to win this case, and win it big, in my view" Stern said."
http://www.forward.com/articles/11410/

(I am assuming "win it big" means forcing a teenager to be circumcised against his will, with court approval)

Later in the article, they make a good point:
"Since the 1950s, the Supreme Court, in the context of cases involving both contraception and abortion, has generally expanded the rights of teenagers when it comes to their own bodies. Harvard Law School professor Martha Minow, an expert in family law and in cases involving religious rights, would like to see that precedent extended in Oregon.

"If the child at issue is 12 years old, a court would rightly consider that individual's own view - about religion and about the procedure at issue - perhaps not as the ultimate basis for the decision but as a vital input," Minow wrote in an e-mail to the Forward. "Legally, morally, and practically, the view of an emerging adolescent would be highly germane here just as it would for a medical decision facing a pregnant teen.""

If this was a 13 year old girl facing the need for an abortion, courts have at least given respect to her views, and her rights. Yet in this case, this boy, facing many of the same issues, and at the same age, is still being legally shoved around like he is just owned property.


----------



## Arduinna (May 30, 2002)

Stern can KMA.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
Stern can KMA.

Whats KMA?


----------



## BamaDude (Aug 17, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Arduinna* 
Stern can KMA.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *perspective* 
Whats KMA?

I would guess "Kiss My A__!"...

but I could be wrong.


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Ok so I have the writ. I want to give those who are interested the opportunity to read it but I am trying to figure out how to best do that. I suppose those who are interested can PM me and I can email it to you. You need to be sure you can handle a 6mb attachment. It's 155 pages long but most of that seems to be attachments of previous court documents.


----------



## Ensemble (Apr 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jwhispers* 
Ok so I have the writ. I want to give those who are interested the opportunity to read it but I am trying to figure out how to best do that. I suppose those who are interested can PM me and I can email it to you. You need to be sure you can handle a 6mb attachment. It's 155 pages long but most of that seems to be attachments of previous court documents.

Can you publish it at one of the many free file hosting services?


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Done:

http://www.adrive.com/public/205fcfc...f1ce8ae56.html

ETA: I haven't had time to read the thing yet and may not be able to until the weekend but curiously he is basing this not only on Amendment 1 but also 14 (due process) I am not quite sure how that fits in guess I'll just have to read and see.


----------



## kblackstone444 (Jun 17, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *armychicmkm* 
Sorry, I gotta disagree. This case is by far worse than any parent circumcising a baby. So many parents circumcise their baby boys because that is all they know. Maybe "ignorance is no excuse" but I simply cannot lump in parents who are good people doing what they think is right and trying to what best for their child with a man who is being intentionally cruel to his 13 old son.

I circed my son as a newborn almost 13 years ago because I thought that was what always had to be done. I thought it was best for him, but in reality, I was naive, barely 19 years old and didn't do enough of my own research and had everyone else giving me bad information. I'd hate to be lumped together with guyg like this guy! There's such a difference between the two!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *perspective;11161569I*
f this was a 13 year old girl facing the need for an abortion, courts have at least given respect to her views, and her rights. Yet in this case, this boy, facing many of the same issues, and at the same age, is still being legally shoved around like he is just owned property.

Good point, but I was gonna word it more cosmetically- can you imagine if this boy was a girl and her Father was trying to force her to have a boob job or something? He would be thrown out of court and lose custody and probably even visitation with the child, so why is it okay for this guy with his son?


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

Here is the medical "opinion" Bolt sites in favor of circ:

Quote:

Among the eight affidavits Father submitted
to the Trial Court was one from Michael Ellen, M.D.,
a board-certified urologist, licensed to practice
medicine in the state of Washington. He is also a
member of the Northwest Urology Society and of the
American Society of Clinical Urologists. He was then
currently Chairman of the Division of Surgery at
Providence St. Peter Hospital [in Olympia,
Washington]. Dr. Ellen found that:
A. Circumcision would be a safe procedure for the
child, with no significant risk of complications;
B. Circumcision results in greatly reduced risks
of penile cancer and of some infections (such as
ballanitis);
C. There will be no health detriment to the child from a circumcision.
D. There is evidence of glanular adhesions which
should have disappeared by age three. This alone is
cause for recommendation for the procedure.
E. He envisions performing the procedure under
local anesthetic.
F. The procedure itself will be painless (with some
minor discomfort for about three days afterward but
not enough to preclude him from going to school or
participating in most normal daily activities).
Affidavit of Michael Ellen, M.D. (June 7, 2004).
Two other physicians, Len Albert, M.D., and
Larry Perrin, M.D. (both licensed to practice
medicine in the state of Washington) submitted
affidavits concluding that:
A. Numbing agents are used to insure that the
procedure itself is without pain. There may be some
minor discomfort for about three days after the
procedure---but nothing that would preclude M
attending school or carrying on most of his normal
daily activities. After that, they anticipate no
discomfort at all.
B. The procedure does not require hospitalization
or general anesthesia. It can easily be done in Dr.
Michael Ellen's office.
C. Medically, there is no 'downside' to being
circumcised. Apart from the religious reason for the
procedure, there are also significant medical reasons
favoring the operation as well. Specifically, (a) the
rate of penile cancer in circumcised males is many
times lower than it is in uncircumcised males, and
(b) the rate of certain infections (such as ballinitis) is
much lower in circumcised males than it is in
uncircumcised males. Affidavit of Len Albert, M.D.
at 1 and 3 (June 3, 2004); Affidavit of Larry Perrin, M.D. at 2-3 (June 4, 2004).
I have highlighted some inaccuracies. The fine touch study, documenting that circumcised penises are less sensitive, has been ignored. Psychological damage is not addressed. The mother's initial request for custody asserts that non-consented circumcision of a 9 year old is physical and sexual abuse.

Also, I looked up the age where a minor can be emancipated in Oregon - he can be freed from his father at 16 assuming he has a job and meets some other requirements.

On thing for Oregon residents to consider - it might be possible pass legislation requiring a minors consent for circumcision if the minor is over the age of 12. Oregon is a pretty liberal state, right? That legislation (if passed) could be challenged, but it would take time to do that.


----------



## perspective (Nov 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SleeplessMommy* 
On thing for Oregon residents to consider - it might be possible pass legislation requiring a minors consent for circumcision if the minor is over the age of 12. Oregon is a pretty liberal state, right? That legislation (if passed) could be challenged, but it would take time to do that.

Wait, has such legislation been written up yet? Are you suggesting Oregon residents to do it? Could they? Why is now a more likely time for that to work?


----------



## Calyxir (Apr 11, 2008)

And that, Perspective, is the crux of the whole battle, and why it has played out this far instead of being thrown out at the first hearing as being ridiculous, cruel and sexual abuse.

What Michael Stern and his merry bunch have realised is that if a minor, in this case a 12 year old boy, has rights to a choice over cosmetic alterations to his body, _then so do infants_ and a judgement against the father will impact deeply on a parent's right to cut up a baby just because they want to. Or alternatively, if parents have the right to forceably alter an infant, because he is a minor, then he is a minor all the way up to the age of self determination - 18? and they can do what they like to him up to that age.


----------



## Claire and Boys (Mar 27, 2007)

I haven't even read all the replies, sorry. But should it not at least require BOTH parent's signature on a consent form to have the child circumcised? The mother was against it, was she not?

Anyway, this is the father's conversion to Judaism that has sprung this, right? I thought a boy was only considered Jewish if his MOTHER was Jewish, not the father?


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Claire and Boys* 
I haven't even read all the replies, sorry. But should it not at least require BOTH parent's signature on a consent form to have the child circumcised? The mother was against it, was she not?

Anyway, this is the father's conversion to Judaism that has sprung this, right? I thought a boy was only considered Jewish if his MOTHER was Jewish, not the father?

They are divorced and the father has fully custody of the boy. Your second point is ostensibly correct.


----------



## SleeplessMommy (Jul 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *perspective* 
Wait, has such legislation been written up yet? Are you suggesting Oregon residents to do it? Could they? Why is now a more likely time for that to work?

It has not been written up, to my knowledge. If there is anyone _in Oregon_ who wants to work on this, we see what the effort would be. The lobbying required would be _a full time job_ for several people. A ballot initiative would also be a possibility if anyone thinks 51% of voters are against un-consented circ in adolescents.


----------



## Ensemble (Apr 9, 2008)

Does anyone know if there has been news about this father's appeal to the Supreme Court, or any activity regarding this being sent back to the lower court?


----------



## Angi (Jun 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ensemble* 
Does anyone know if there has been news about this father's appeal to the Supreme Court, or any activity regarding this being sent back to the lower court?

Right now it's a waiting game. The petition for the writ of certiorari has been placed on the calendar to be heard. This is just a hearing as to whether or not the writ will be granted.

Even if the writ is granted, there is no reason to believe it will be heard by the full court. It can still be thrown back or just plain old rejected without any opinion or reason.

It is not scheduled for conference until September 29, 2008. The conference is when the justices look at briefs of all the writs that have been submitted and decide if there is any reason to bring the case before the other justices (as I understand it). If 4 of them decide to grant the writ, a majority still have to decide whether or not to hear the case, which means more briefs and more filing.

At the rate the court moves, it could actually be quite awhile until anything is heard.

The docket is kept pretty up to date. Here's a link to it.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1348.htm

Here is my disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I just find the law and how the USSC works fascinating.
And I read too much.


----------



## Ensemble (Apr 9, 2008)

Thanks, Angi!


----------



## kmeyrick (Aug 30, 2006)

I can't believe it's legal to subject a thirteen year old to unnecessary surgery against his will. And I am disappointed with the synagogue that they would accept and endorse a forced conversion from a teen-ager old enough to think for himself, and believe or not believe.


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kmeyrick* 
I can't believe it's legal to subject a thirteen year old to unnecessary surgery against his will. And I am disappointed with the synagogue that they would accept and endorse a forced conversion from a teen-ager old enough to think for himself, and believe or not believe.

I think I mentioned this before but it bares repeating. The lower court (OSC) gave the father an option that he hasn't exhausted. That option was to have the case essentially re examined in the lower court taking the boys opinion into account. Considering that this route would have been far cheaper, and taken less time, than going to SCOUS it leave little doubt what the boys opinion is on this matter.


----------



## Nandi (Jul 12, 2008)

This case is interesting for many reasons. The two that catch my eye are that 1. Obviously it is wrong to do this on an unconsenting 13 year old. To admit that is to admit that it is wrong to do it on unconsenting infants.
2. One thing circumcision has historically been used for is as a mark of enslavement. You own someone, therefore you get to do what you want with his or her body. You see the dad in this case trying exert his ownership and control over the boy, and to get even with the mother. I hope the case drags on until the boy can be emancipated or becomes an adult.


----------



## foreskin friendly (Jul 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jwhispers* 
Actually, if this grinds its way to the bitter end the kid could be at least 15 before it is resolved. And the older he gets the harder it would be to believe the court would allow him to be forcibly circumcised. But this is the US so who knows.

ETA: For perspective, IFIRC, he was only 8 or 9 when this started.

I haven't read through the rest of this thread beyond the above quote.
I have to stop here.
The only thing I can think about is how that poor child has been mentally tortured already for years (assuming he is not accepting of the circumcision..which I cannot imagine a 8-15 year old would ever be...but I could be wrong).

Just imagining a child being fearful of having part of his genitalia removed for YEARS...day in and day out...

now THAT is abuse. THAT is emotional and psychological child ABUSE.

Oh, this case makes me so sad and angry on so many levels....


----------



## Pumpkinheadmommy (Nov 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Angi* 

The docket is kept pretty up to date. Here's a link to it.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/07-1348.htm

Here is my disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. I just find the law and how the USSC works fascinating.
And I read too much.









From the link you provided:

Jun 30 2008 Waiver of right of respondent Lia Boldt to respond filed.

Any idea why she would waive her right to respond? I'm curious about this. Is this common?


----------



## Fellow Traveler (Jan 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pumpkinheadmommy* 
From the link you provided:

Jun 30 2008 Waiver of right of respondent Lia Boldt to respond filed.

Any idea why she would waive her right to respond? I'm curious about this. Is this common?

Probably the cost involved.


----------

