Doctors Opposing Circumcision
An Appeal for Misha
|
|
Doctors Opposing Circumcision
|
|
Those of you who are serious about protecting children from non-therapeutic circumcision have a unique opportunity to assist with a legal case in Oregon. An Oregon father, (an attorney), claims to be in the process of converting to Judaism and wants his now 12-year-old son, ‘Misha’, of whom he has custody, circumcised against both the child’s and the natural mother’s express wishes.
Sadly, a physician, a fellow congregant of the father, has already been found willing to ignore the child’s wishes. The father claims a rabbi has insisted on the child’s circumcision. The father’s motives might even be sheer spite toward Misha’s mother; we can’t know.
An attorney working pro bono publico has donated more than $20,000 of his time to assisting the mother by attempting to block the circumcision in the courts. The case is now on its way to the Oregon Supreme Court after losses at both the trial level and an intermediate appellate court. Judges have affirmed without opinion or testimony that a non-medical circumcision of a 12-year-old is ‘within the discretion of a custodial parent.’ There is no medical necessity alleged at all by anyone. The circumcision would be purely cultural, even merely spiteful.
If you could possibly assist; I urge you to make a tax-deductible donation to Doctors Opposing Circumcision, in Misha’s name, to be used only for his legal fees and costs. I will supply you with much more detail by pdf if you have a sincere wish to help. Even small sums, the cost of a restaurant meal, $25, $50, will help if enough people chip in, but if you can afford more, that would be deeply appreciated by the boy and his mother who cannot afford to oppose the attorney-father.
This is the clearest case of a parent’s claimed religious beliefs trumping a child’s right to an intact body that I have seen in 26 years of practicing law. It fairly screams out for justice, but justice costs, even when most of the legal help has so far been provided pro bono. (Those of you with an interest in reading how the US Supreme Court balances children’s bodily rights vs. a parent’s rights to the free practice of religion might considering reading Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US Sup Ct 158: “Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free to make martyrs of their children.”)
PLEASE feel free to re-post this at websites and bulletin boards where concerned and sympathetic souls browse.
And please note that my bona fides, and that of the attorney in Oregon, Clay Patrick, are both verifiable at the Oregon and Washington state websites authenticating licensed attorneys. The progress of the case is easily verified at the Oregon Courts website, though as a family law case, the file may be partially sealed for the child’s protection:
“In re the Marriage of James Boldt and Lia Boldt, Jackson County (Oregon) Case No. 98-2318D3, Appellate Court Case No. A126175.” (Affirmed 12/27/2006) Verifiable at:
.John V Geisheker, JD, LL.M., Admitted to the Washington State Bar Association, #32033
Verifiable at: http://www.wsba.org/public/default.htm
by entering attorney license: #32033
Clay Patrick, Esq., Admitted to the Oregon Bar Association, #77298
Verifiable at http://www.osbar.org/members/start.asp
by entering Attorney license #77298
One may make donations with Paypal. 
John V. Geisheker, J.D., LL.M.
Attorney-at-Law,
Executive Director,
Doctors Opposing Circumcision
Suite 42
2442 NW Market Street
Seattle, WA 98107-4137
USA
Cell +1. 206. 465. 6636
On Wednesday, April 18, 2007, Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) perfected its intervention in the Boldt case by filing an amicus curiae brief in support of the petition for review with exhibits attached in support of a petition for review. 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 filed a second amicus curiae brief on the merits of the case in July 2007. DOC's two briefs in PDF files may be viewed at:
The exhibits which were attached to the first brief are not available at this time.
Although Misha is a Russian Orthodox Christian, the American Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League, and other Jewish organizations have taken an interest in the case and have filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the father.
The media has given this litigation some attention. The Oregonian, Newsweek, and Forward have run stories. In addition, the Associated Press has distributed a story to its subscribers and that story has run in numerous newspapers.
The Oregon Supreme Court announced its opinion on this procedural question on Friday, 25 January 2008. The court reversed the opinion of the court of appeal and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The Supreme Court said:
"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."
The Oregon Supreme Court thus tacitly recognizes the 12-year-old child's right to be consulted in this decision and opens the door to a possible change of custody, depending on the child's opinion. The child's right to be consulted is a right guaranteed by Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child."
The opinion and order of the court may be viewed at http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S054714.htm.
Misha observed his 13th birthday on March 2, 2008.
After the court announced its decision, James Boldt, Misha's father, moved for a reconsideration of the decision by the Oregon Supreme Court. The Oregon Supreme Court denied Boldt's motion for reconsideration on March 5, 2008 and extended its stay order. Boldt then petitioned the United States Supreme Court in late April 2008 for a writ of certiorari. The United States Supreme Court has not yet ruled on Boldt's petition.
Nothing more will take place until the United States Supreme Court grants or denies Boldt's petition for writ of certiorari.
