TENAFLY NEW JERSEY BERGEN COUNTY DIVORCE LAWYER

The Oregon Supreme Court just heard arguments in a dispute between divorced parents over whether to circumcise their 12-year-old son. The father, a convert to Judaism, has been joined in an amicus brief by 4 national Jewish organizations that say any effort to interfere with the father's decision - given that he has full custody - "would violate the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion." The mother counters that custody is irrelevant since the procedure amounts to physical abuse : "If the custodial parent wanted to amputate some other body part, I think the court would step in." The father, who also is a lawyer and represented himself, asserted that a custodial parent could do anything to a child he wanted, as long as it wasn't actually illegal, although tattooing "a swastika on the forehead" might raise questions of parental fitness. This may be the first time an appellate court has dealt with the issue of circumcision.    Boldt v. Boldt, Oregon, New Jersey Lawyer, November 9, 2007