Boy’s parents in court over circumcision

SALEM – The father of a 12-year-old boy told the Oregon Supreme Court on Tuesday that circumcision is a decision best left to the custodial parent, while his ex-wife argued a trial judge should have given more consideration to her concerns about the effect on her son.

James Boldt, an attorney, argued his own case in a dispute that began with his conversion to Judaism in 2004.

But the six justices who heard the arguments over whether Boldt’s son should be circumcised steered clear of religious issues and instead focused on custody of the boy.

The argument centered on whether Boldt’s request to circumcise his son amounted to a risk to the boy’s health that supported the mother’s argument that she should be granted custody.

Chief Justice Paul De Muniz asked James Boldt whether he felt the trial judge had the authority to make the decision on circumcision for the custodial parent without hearing more about the concerns of the boy’s mother, Lia Boldt.

“The court is not a rubber stamp,” Boldt agreed. “A court does not have to grant a hearing just for the asking.”

But Clayton Patrick, the attorney for Lia Boldt, argued the trial judge should have allowed her to present some evidence to support her health concerns.

“In this case there’s been a lot of talk that what we’re trying to do is say there can never be a circumcision,” Patrick said.

“We’re not saying that at all. … We presented enough evidence to at least have a hearing.”

John Geishker, executive director of Doctors Opposing Circumcision, a Seattle-based group, said after the hearing that he hoped the court would consider the child’s rights before making any decision.

“The child deserves a hearing,” Geishker said. “This is a serious procedure on a 12-year-old. Most men, I think, would agree.”