Snip Snip (NRR)

LaserWolf

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/120132151922450.xml&coll=7So this dad in Oregon converted to Judaism. Now he wants to circumcise his son.What do you all say, ya or nayJewish rite case needs more info, ruling says Religion - The high court says a parents' battle over circumcising their son lacks the boy's state of mind Saturday, January 26, 2008ASHBEL S. GREEN The Oregonian Staff The Oregon Supreme Court ruled Friday that a divorced couple's bitter dispute whether to circumcise their 12-year-old son cannot be resolved without first deciding what the boy wants. The Supreme Court sent the case back to a Medford trial judge to determine whether James Boldt, who converted to Judaism, should be able to circumcise his son against the wishes of his ex-wife Lia, a member of the Russian Orthodox Church. "We think that no decision should be made without some assessment of (the boy's) true state of mind," the court said. James Boldt, who lives near Olympia, and Lia Boldt, who lives in Jacksonville, declined to comment. The case has attracted national attention. Circumcision critics filed court briefs claiming the practice was inhumane. Jewish groups weighed in favor of the longstanding religious ritual. But the justices steered clear about the larger debate over the practice, which involves cutting the foreskin of the penis, typically in infancy. "We do not need to decide in this case which side has presented a more persuasive case regarding the medical risks or benefits of male circumcision," Chief Justice Paul J. De Muniz wrote for a unanimous court. "We conclude that, although circumcision is an invasive medical procedure that results in permanent physical alteration of a body part and has attendant medical risks, the decision to have a male child circumcised for medical or religious reasons is one that is commonly and historically made by parents in the United States." Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law who has followed the case, credited the Supreme Court with not turning the case into a proxy fight over circumcision and First Amendment religious rights. "This is a very personal piece of litigation between people who are divorced and their child," Tobias said. "The court was respectful of their rights without making it into a complete circus." Friday's ruling didn't resolve whether the boy will be circumcised. Instead, it appears to guarantee that the 10-year-old divorce and custody battle will continue for the foreseeable future. The couple married in the early 1990s and lived in Grants Pass. She filed for divorce in 1998. The child initially lived with his mother, but his father later won custody. The father started studying Judaism in 1999 and later converted. He said he gradually introduced the boy to Judaism. By 2004, the child wanted to convert, which meant getting circumcised. The boy had recently turned 9 when his father scheduled the procedure. The mother went to court, saying her son told her that he was afraid to tell his father that he didn't want to be circumcised. Jackson County Circuit Judge Rebecca G. Orf sided with the father's right as a custodial parent to make medical decisions for the boy. But the judge blocked the procedure until the mother finished her appeals. The Oregon Supreme Court did not explicitly say the boy gets to decide whether to be circumcised, but it went a long way toward giving him the final word. If the trial judge deems that the child wants to be circumcised, the custodial parent has a right to make the decision whether or not the mother objects. If the boy doesn't want to undergo the procedure, the trial judge should reconsider the mother's request to regain custody. De Muniz suggested in his ruling that forcing the boy at age 12 to be circumcised against his will could undermine the father's relationship with his son. John D. Geisheker, executive director and general counsel of the Seattle-based Doctors Opposing Circumcision, said he was simply pleased to get the case back to the trial court to argue the merits of the practice. "For a child to undergo a surgery he doesn't need is a human rights issue," Geisheker said. Lee Rosen, a North Carolina divorce lawyer and family law expert who has been following the case, said it made sense to try to settle the dispute over what the boy really wants. But Rosen also questioned the wisdom of giving the boy the final word and -- in effect -- forcing him to choose between his parents. "Kids tell mom what they want to hear and they tell dad what they want to hear," Rosen said. "They make decisions based on a promised trip to Disney World." Ashbel S. (Tony) Green: 503-221-8202; [email]tonygreen@news.oregonian.com[/email]