A man and his ex-wife are embroiled in a holy war over the issue of circumcising the couple’s 12-year-old son. The Oregon Supreme Court is now considering the case of James Boldt, a family-law attorney who converted to Judaism in 2004. He seeks to have the minor surgery performed against the wishes of the boy’s mother, Lia Boldt, who is Russian Orthodox…. “It’s the classic kind of decision a custodial parent would make,” said James Boldt, according to the Oregonian newspaper. Lia Boldt, 45, filed for divorce in 1998, and though she initially won custody, James Boldt, who now lives near Olympia, Wash., later gained it. Mrs. Boldt’s lawyer, Clayton Patrick, argued she should get a court hearing to try to prove circumcising a 12-year-old boy poses serious health risks. He also maintained the boy is afraid to tell his father he doesn’t wish to go through with the surgery.
Ah, don’t you just love it when the health and welfare of a child becomes a casualty in the battle between two ex-spouses? Yes, if you believe that this is a struggle over circumcising a 12-year-old boy, I’ve got a great deal on Republican ethics (a sale on oxymorons??) for you. Sadly for the boy, this argument is less about circumcision vis-a-vis his health and welfare than it is about his divorced parents using the legal system to wage war against one another. Throw in religion, and you’ve got the potential for a truly entertaining legal conflict. If not for the fact that a 12-year-old boy is at the center of this tug of war, those sorry scenario might actually be rather entertaining.
The thing that I find truly disturbing is that both sides seem to have forgotten that the fulcrum of this silly little dispute is their 12-year-old boy’s Johnson. I’m sorry, but if you’re talking about taking a knife to my purple-helmeted yogurt slinger, you’d best be prepared to pull back a bloody stump, because you’re not getting near me with ANYTHING sharp. I’d be very surprised if the boy doesn’t feel something very similar. After all, we males are nothing if not protective of our manhood. Yet, the Boldts seem to have completely lost sight of this reality.
The Oregonian reports the parents dispute whether the boy himself wants to be circumcised, noting the trial judge did not interview the child or appoint an attorney to represent him.
James Boldt said legally it doesn’t matter what the boy wants, saying custodial parents get to make medical decisions for their children.
Uh, HELLO?? How can this POSSIBLY qualify as a medical decision? This is about mutilating your son’s penis. This is no more a medical decision than having an elective lobotomy is. How about pulling your anterior from your posterior and look out for the son you profess to love?
It’s beginning to sound as if someone needs to have their parental rights terminated, eh?
Yes, it does.
