Legal News

Oregon Supremes Wants Kid to Settle Circumcision Dispute

By Peter Lattman

Remember the Oregon Supreme Court circumcision case, loyal Law Blog readers? The case, still going on, pits divorced parents against each other. The father, a lawyer, recently converted to Judaism and wants to circumcise his 12-year-old son, over whom he has full custody. The mother wants custody back and doesn’t want the circumcision to take place. It’s not clear what the kid wants. The lower court dismissed the wife’s challenge, and she appealed.

In this 30-page opinion, the court sent the case back to the trial court to answer the question: What does the boy want? If the trial court finds that M, which is what the court calls him, agrees to be circumcised it should deny the mother’s requests. But if the trial court finds the child opposes the circumcision, the court must decide if it will affect the father’s ability to care for the child.

Seems reasonable, but not to the father and several Jewish organizations that filed an amicus brief arguing that the boy’s attitude about whether he wants the circumcision is not legally significant. They assert that a child is not the decision-maker on such questions, any more than an infant who is circumcised. Further, they argued that the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause gives the father a constitutionally protected right to circumcise his son, arguing that American Jews must be free to practice circumcision because it is and has been one of the most fundamental and sacred parts of the Jewish tradition.

Aligning with the mother was a Seattle-based group called Doctors Opposing Circumcision. Said the executive director of the group: “Parents are free to practice their religion and to have religious beliefs, but they are not free to change the physical body of their child at will.”

The court more or less skirts around the constitutional issue by saying that the boy’s attitude toward the circumcision is key toward determining who should have 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.”

We look forward to letting you know what M decides.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on January 25, 2008 (boomark / email).