Mischa case: 14 yr old doesn't want circumcision

[Papai]

http://www.circumstitions.com/Law.html#boldt

(1) The Child clearly has expressed to the Court that he does not wish to be circumcised. Further, the Child does not wish to convert to Judaism.

(2) The Child discussed in depth his fear of returning to Petitioner's custody once Petitioner became aware of his position regarding the circumcision and religious conversion. Further, the Child explained to the Court that he was so concerned about what Petitioner's reaction would be that he was afraid to tell Petitioner his true feelings about the circumcision and conversion,

(3) The Child pleaded with the Court not tp send him back to Petitioner's custody during his in camera interview. Further, the Child stated that it was his desire to live with Respondent. It was clearly apparent that the Child was suffering from significant emotional anguish regarding his current living situation with Petitioner.

(4) Although Petitioner testified that he would not force the Child to be circumcised or to convert to Judaism against the Child's wishes, the Court has concerns about the ongoing emotional and/or psychological effect that the Child's decision will have on the parent-child relationship and the Petitioner's ability to properly care for the Child.

(5) The Court Is satisfied that the Respondent has met her burden of demonstrating to the Court that there has been a substantial change in circumstances relating to the capability of one or both parents to care for the Child. The events (Child's position regarding the circumcision and conversion; Child's fear of returning to Petitioner's care; Child's fear of being truthful with Petitioner regarding his position as to the circumcision and conversion; Child's desire to live with Respondent; and Child's obvious emotional anguish over his living situation) that precipitated the substantial change fn circumstances were unanticipated and have arisen since the last Court order of October 9, 2002.

[Papai]

The court is recognizing that the boy doesn't want the circumcision and even taking his not wanting the circumcision, despite his father's insistence, as reason to remove him from the father's custody.

It'll be interesting if by the courts recognizing that at 14, a boy has a right to decide if he is to be circumcised, whether courts will start to view infant circumcision in a similar light. If not, the courts will then need to determine at what age exactly, does the boy gain the right to determine whether he is to be circumcised or remain intact.

[pigpokey]

That ruling only established that the trial court was allowed to do a custody review using best interests analysis. Specifically they found changed circumstances warranting such. Changed circumstances included the child's objections. It did not rule that the child was entitled to refuse circ. It remanded to the trial court to determine if the child should go live with the other parent, or if the child should stay with the first parent but have protections put in place (e.g., no circ). I tried to see what happened but don't have enough search time. I see that last October the U.S. Supreme Court declined to get involved so it was headed back to the trial court in ... Medford?

Anyone know what happened after that?

See, you can't in most states just go around asking for custody changes any time you want. You have to first make a showing that there have been sufficient changed circumstances since the previous custody order to warrant the court getting involved in custody again.

[PuppyFluffer]

PIgpokey, I believe this case has remained in state. It was the state supreme court that handed it back to the appeals court to take into consideration what the boy wanted.

This case was originally brought as a custody issue and an issue of who has the right to make the circumcision decision for the boy. The custoday father wanted to make the decision against the non-cistodial mother's wishes.

It was not a religious issue. Remember, religion and religious circ cannot be discussed in this forum. It's a part of the above quoted material but we cannot comment on that specific issue here.

[phatchristy]

Just reading that I feel so horrible for this boy. Seriously, he sounds terrified to return to the father's care. And, I just had this weird thought. Imagine being a teenager and being forced to live with a parent who has a warped sense of thought and wants to have part of the teenager's private parts cut off. I mean, that is the kind of stuff that nightmares are made of.

[perspective]

Its horrible that this boy had to go through years of trials to protect himself from circumcision. He spent years being afraid of that, and his father. Boys should have the same right the girls already have, to have their bodies protected, to feel safe in their own homes.

Poor boy... at least he is protected now.

[Papai]

Originally Posted by pigpokey

That ruling only established that the trial court was allowed to do a custody review using best interests analysis. Specifically they found changed circumstances warranting such. Changed circumstances included the child's objections. It did not rule that the child was entitled to refuse circ. It remanded to the trial court to determine if the child should go live with the other parent, or if the child should stay with the first parent but have protections put in place (e.g., no circ). I tried to see what happened but don't have enough search time. I see that last October the U.S. Supreme Court declined to get involved so it was headed back to the trial court in ... Medford?

Anyone know what happened after that?

See, you can't in most states just go around asking for custody changes any time you want. You have to first make a showing that there have been sufficient changed circumstances since the previous custody order to warrant the court getting involved in custody again.

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

So will the courts ever decide whether the boy should be allowed to determined if he is to be circ'd or not? Or will they just hand over custody to the mother and leave it at that?