The quote from Boldt rather strikingly focuses on how forcing a
12-year-old to be circumcised is bad for the 12-year-old because it "could
seriously affect the relationship between [him] and father." Is that really
all there is to it? Might it not also be bad because a 12-year-old shouldn't
be forced to lose a part of his body that he doesn't want to lose, at least
absent some pretty significant medical reason?
More broadly, say that the issue arose not in a child custody case, but
within an intact family. Should the law allow parents to circumcise their
12-year-old son against his expressed will -- as opposed to circumcising an
infant who can't express a will? Or should that be seen as child abuse, with
possible criminal or civil liability for the parents or the mohel?
Eugene
Eric Rassbach writes:
> I would add to Chip's point that almost all of these cases would arise in
> state
> court rather than federal court since they would for the most part deal with
> domestic relations issues or state law tort claims.
>
> See for example, In re Marriage of Boldt, 344 Or. 1, 176 P.3d 388 (Ore. 2008):
>
>
> Although the parties and amici have presented extensive material regarding
> circumcision, we do not need to *12 decide in this case **394 which side has
> presented a more persuasive case regarding the medical risks or benefits of
> male circumcision. 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. We also conclude that the
> decision to circumcise a male child is one that generally falls within a
> custodial
> parent's authority, unfettered by a noncustodial parent's concerns or
> beliefs-medical, religious or otherwise. Were mother's concerns or beliefs
> regarding circumcision all that were asserted in the affidavits in this case,
> we
> would conclude that mother did not carry her initial statutory burden to
> demonstrate a sufficient change in circumstances demonstrating father's
> inability to properly care for M.
>
> However, in this case, mother has averred in her affidavit that M objects to
> the circumcision.FN8 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, 555
> P.2d 28 (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.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
