Oregon boy, 12, can tell court whether circumcision is for him

January 31st, 2008, 9:17 am · 2 Comments · posted by lawngriffiths

Pity poor 12-year-old Misha Boldt. His father wants him circumcised. His mother objects. Theyre divorced. The father, James Boldt, converted to Judaism and has custody of the boy. The mother, Lia Boldt, is Russian Orthodox and came from
Russia where non-religious circumcision is rare.

Misha is 12 years old a very problematic age for anyone to be told to have a sensitive and personal part of his body excised. Whether his foreskin stays or goes has been fodder for a trial court in Oregon, then a states appeal court, then the Oregon Supreme Court.

And last Friday, the states high court opined that the issue goes back to the trial court where all parties must find out what Misha wants. Repeat: What Misha wants. Can Misha say what he wants and still have parents treating him the same?

The obvious and reasonable solution is to let Misha reach 18 years old and make his own decision. By now, were sure, he has learned that the foreskin is a structure with real purpose and value.

First off, boys that age arent likely to want that part of their bodies cut off. But the boy is under the custodial care of his father, who insists he will raise the boy Jewish and believes circumcision goes with that. The mother asserts that their son does not want the procedure and that the family turmoil surrounding it and the fathers pressures are harmful for their son. With all that, she says, custody should be transferred to her.

The Jan. 25 ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court said, In our view, at age 12, Ms attitude regarding circumcision 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 fathers capability to properly care for M.

In the finale paragraph of the ruling (http.www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/supreme.htm#jan08), the court said, If the trial court finds that M agrees to be circumcised, the court shall enter an order denying mothers motions. If, however, the trial court finds that M opposes the circumcision, it must then determine whether Ms opposition to circumcision will affect fathers ability to property care for M. And, if necessary, the trial court then can determine whether it is in Ms best interest to retain the existing custody arrangement, whether other conditions should be imposed on fathers continued custody of M, or change custody from father to mother.

Just think of this. This kid not only has to deal with all the conflict over the fate of his foreskin, but about its ramifications on who will care for him. That pressure is unfair. The father needs to back off and leave his son the way God made him.

Amicus briefs were filed for both sides — Jewish forces siding with the father and human rights and genital mutilation forces with the mother. This is the clearest case of a parents claimed religious beliefs trumping a childs right to an intact body that I have seen in 26 years of practicing law, said John Geisheker, an attorney and executive director of Seattle, Wash.-based Doctors Opposing Circumcision. With the Supreme Court decision, J. Steven Svoboda , founder of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, was declaring it a victory because the Oregon Supreme Court did not order circumcision.

But the Anti-Defamation League was hailing the decision as affirming the right of parents to circumcise their children. The American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the ADL and the Union of Orthodox Congregations of America joined in the brief supporting the father.

The Jewish case for circumcision has been so weakened through the centuries, especially as it steadily abandoned many harsh laws and practices of the Hebrew Bible out of common sense and humanizing. Any reading of Jewish history shows circumcision was not always practiced and that males are Jewish through their birth from Jewish mothers, not by being clipped in a ceremony. Unless a real bris ceremony is performed, the renewing of a covenant with God doesnt take place, such as in the case of Jews who have their boys cut in hospitals. Some Jewish parents hold alternative bris ceremonies (bris shalom) where nothing is cut and their sons remain whole. The Humanist Jewish movement, for example, does not embrace circumcision. Some of the most prolific writers of books, papers and newsletters opposing the practice are Jewish, for obvious reasons.

In his book, Question Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective, Ronald Goldman, a Jew in Boston, noted, Jews value human rights but have not yet addressed the issue of Jewish male infants having a right to physical integrity, a right recognized by Amnesty International as apply to all individuals.

Goldman, whose first book on circumcision was The Hidden Trauma: How An American Cultural Practice Affects Infants and Ultimately Us All, states, Those who would deny that an infant has a right to physical integrity must answer the question: Does anyone have this right? And if so, at what age does one acquire this right? What happens to fundamental principles and support for them when we make exceptions?

Heres hoping Misha Boldt can remain whole. Judaism will have moved one step forward in its otherwise brilliant march to the fullness of what it means to be truly human and humane.

Share and Enjoy: