An important issue remained undecided after the Oregon Supreme Court on Friday sent back to the trial court for further findings the dispute between divorced parents over whether their 12-year old son could receive a religious circumcision. As previously reported, in Boldt v. Boldt, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case for further findings on whether or not the boy wanted the procedure. The court's decision only tangentially addressed a critical issue-- to what extent do minor children have free exercise rights when their religious views conflict with those their parents wish them to hold?
In the 1972 U.S. Supreme Court case of Wisconsin v. Yoder, Justice Douglas dissenting in part raised this precise question. There Amish parents were being prosecuted for refusing to send their children to high school on the grounds that high school attendance conflicted with Amish beliefs. Douglas argued: "If the parents in this case are allowed a religious exemption, the inevitable effect is to impose the parents' notions of religious duty upon their children. Where the child is mature enough to express potentially conflicting desires, it would be an invasion of the child's rights to permit such an imposition without canvassing his views."
In Boldt, the child's father argued that the 12-year old's views were irrelevant. He, and several Jewish organizations as amici, argued that the 12-year old should have no more say in the decision than should an infant who is circumcised. In one of her arguments, the mother who opposed the circumcision (along with amicus Doctors Opposing Circumcision) also suggested that the boy should have no say in the matter, so that even if he wanted the procedure he should not be circumcised because of the medical risk involved. The court fudged the issue, holding that the boy's views are important, but only because forcing him against his will to have the procedure would impact his relationship with his father to the point that a change of custody might be in order.
In both speech and religion cases, courts have often vindicated rights of mature children, but in most cases parents supported their child's First Amendment claims. When there is disagreement between parents and child, the issue is more complex. An example of this is an abortion decision made by a mature minor over the religious objections of her parents. In this situation, the Supreme Court has upheld parental involvement, but not parental veto. Another example is a parent's attempt to remove his or her minor child from a religious cult. Courts appear willing to give parents full authority to do this for minors, though not for adult children. See Scott v. Ross, (9th Cir., 1998).
An excellent Harvard Law Review Note, Children as Believers, Minors' Free Exercise Rights and the Psychology of Religious Development, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 2205 (2002) [LEXIS link], further explores the issue of minors' religious rights.
