c. 2007 Religion News Service
SALEM, Ore. _ A father who converted to Judaism told the Oregon Supreme Court on Tuesday (Nov. 6) that he has the right as the custodial parent to circumcise his 12-year-old son against the wishes of his ex-wife.
“It’s the classic kind of decision a custodial parent would make,” said James Boldt, an attorney who argued his own case.
But a lawyer for Lia Boldt argued that she should get a court hearing to try and prove that circumcising a 12-year-old boy poses serious health risks. Their son is afraid to tell his father he doesn’t want to go through with it, the mother’s attorney said.
“We’re not talking about an infant circumcision here,” said Clayton Patrick. “She’s entitled to a hearing.”
The case has drawn nationwide attention, including a group that says circumcision is barbarous and Jewish organizations that oppose the courts’ interfering in a traditional religious rite.
But as the Supreme Court justices questioned the lawyers, they focused largely on family law and the fallout of divorce. James Boldt, who now lives near Olympia, Wash., has custody of the son.
Over and over again, the justices asked about the limits of a custodial parent’s general right to make a wide variety of day-to-day decisions, from where a child goes to school to what neighborhood the family lives in.
Justice Michael Gillette asked whether a noncustodial parent who objected to a child playing football was entitled to a court hearing. “More people get hurt playing football than having a circumcision,” he said.
Inviting the courts to hold hearings to decide every divorce dispute over a child’s potentially dangerous activity would be “preposterous,” he said. “That can’t happen.”
Patrick argued that circumcision is different and that’s why his client deserves a hearing.
Justice Robert Durham questioned whether the court should second-guess the custodial parent’s choices, citing an example of a teenager who wants a nose job. “Are there any limits to the custodial parent’s choices?” he asked.
James Boldt said the limit is whether something is legal or not.
After the couple divorced in 1998, James Boldt, 60, started studying Judaism and later converted. He said his son decided he wanted to convert _ even if it meant circumcision. James Boldt scheduled an appointment in 2004, when the boy was 9, but Lia Boldt went to court.
A county judge sided with the father but blocked the circumcision until the mother completed her appeals. An appeals court affirmed the decision and upheld the father’s request.
It’s not known when the Supreme Court will rule on the case.
(OPTIONAL TRIM FOLLOWS)
In court papers, James Boldt raised one of the larger issues that has drawn national interest _ that he has a constitutional right to raise his son in his religion, and that includes circumcising him.
Daniel Isaac, a Portland rabbi who supports James Boldt’s desire to raise his son in his faith, attended Tuesday arguments out of concern that the justices might place some limits on circumcision that would interfere with an ancient religious tradition.
Isaac said he was relieved that the issue of religion didn’t get much attention in the hearing.
“That didn’t seem to be the interest of the justices,” he said.
The parents dispute whether the boy wants to be circumcised. The trial judge did not interview the child or appoint an attorney to represent him.
But James Boldt said that legally it doesn’t matter what the boy wants. Custodial parents get to make medical decisions for their children, he said.
John Vincent Geishker, executive director of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, attended the hearing and said afterward that he was troubled by that position.
“The problem I have is the lack of focus on the child’s rights,” Geishker said.
(Ashbel S. Green writes for The Oregonian in Portland, Ore.)
KRE/RB END GREEN650 words, with optional trim to 450
A photo of James Boldt arguing before the Oregon Supreme Court is available via https://religionnews.com
