As some of you have read, Doctors Opposing Circumcision (DOC) has been helping defend a boy, now a 13 year old boy, whose father is trying to have circumcised against the wishes of his mother; the mother and father are divorced, the father has legal custody, the boy has told the mother he does not want to be circumcised but is afraid of his father, and I'll let you ferret out the reason why the father is seeking to circumcise the boy.
In April 2007, DOC filed an amicus curia brief in the Boldt case with exhibits attached in support of the petition for review and 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 then filed a second amicus curiae brief on the merits of the case in July 2007. Up to this point lower courts have been ruling in favor of the father; however, in January, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a less than optimal judgment which decreed that the lower courts should have considered the boys wishes in making its decision. While it could have been worse, part of the reason it was not optimal was, by my understanding, if the boy refused they would still have to have a hearing to determine if the boy could refuse over the wishes of the father. Doesn't make any sense to me perhaps I am a little off in my interpretation; for a good critique of the judgment head on over to the Rolling Doughnut.
In any event, this was supposed to be kicked back to the lower court where presumably the boy would get his say. However, apparently that was too much for the father to handle. Instead the SOB has filed a petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in an attempt to overrule the judgment of the the Oregon Supreme Court. This does not mean the case will be heard; what it means is the father is petitioning the court to decide whether or not they will hear an appeal, appeals to the USSC are not (usually) automatic. If four judges decide they want to hear the case then it would be scheduled. This does not mean they believe the OSC ruled incorrectly it just means they will hear the case. There is a note about this over at circumsitions too. Just thought you all would like to know.
In April 2007, DOC filed an amicus curia brief in the Boldt case with exhibits attached in support of the petition for review and 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 then filed a second amicus curiae brief on the merits of the case in July 2007. Up to this point lower courts have been ruling in favor of the father; however, in January, the Oregon Supreme Court issued a less than optimal judgment which decreed that the lower courts should have considered the boys wishes in making its decision. While it could have been worse, part of the reason it was not optimal was, by my understanding, if the boy refused they would still have to have a hearing to determine if the boy could refuse over the wishes of the father. Doesn't make any sense to me perhaps I am a little off in my interpretation; for a good critique of the judgment head on over to the Rolling Doughnut.
In any event, this was supposed to be kicked back to the lower court where presumably the boy would get his say. However, apparently that was too much for the father to handle. Instead the SOB has filed a petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in an attempt to overrule the judgment of the the Oregon Supreme Court. This does not mean the case will be heard; what it means is the father is petitioning the court to decide whether or not they will hear an appeal, appeals to the USSC are not (usually) automatic. If four judges decide they want to hear the case then it would be scheduled. This does not mean they believe the OSC ruled incorrectly it just means they will hear the case. There is a note about this over at circumsitions too. Just thought you all would like to know.
)
