The father, James Boldt, converted to Judaism in 2004 and wants the boy to be circumcised as part of the faith. The mother, Lia Boldt, appealed to the high court, saying the operation could harm her son physically and psychologically.

The state Supreme Court ruled that earlier court decisions failed to determine whether the boy wanted the circumcision, as his father contended, or opposed it, as his mother alleged.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court to answer that question.

If the trial court finds the child agrees to be circumcised, the Supreme Court said, it should deny the mother's requests. But if the trial court finds the child opposes the circumcision, the court has to determine if it will affect the father's ability to care for the child.

The custody dispute began when the child was 4 and the circumcision issue began three years ago when he was 9.

James Boldt, a lawyer, is representing himself, had no comment, his office said. The attorney for both sides also declined to comment.

The case has drawn attention from Jewish groups concerned that the Oregon court might restrict the practice. A group called Doctors Opposing Circumcision backs the mother.

The courts have steered clear of religious or medical issues, focusing on the questions of custody and care of the child.

One constitutional law professor who has been following the case called it "a reasonable ruling."

"I think what may be delicate and tricky is ... how much we can trust what the 12-year-old says, given the circumstances," said Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond. "He likely feels some pressure from (his parents)."

More than a million U.S. infants are circumcised each year, but circumcising adults or teens remains relatively rare. A urologist who met with the boy submitted an affidavit that said the procedure would cause him minor discomfort for about three days but not interfere with his normal activities, the Supreme Court's decision said.

The case has dragged in the courts since it was filed in March 2003.

"This appeal took two years," said Kathy Henry, one of the plaintiffs. "We're glad about the appeals court ruling, but it's been cruel to make residents wait this long."

A spokesman for Dow said the company is reviewing the opinion.

"We continue to believe that the trial court erred in granting class certification," Scot Wheeler said. "Among other things, the trial court ignored evidence that upwards of one-third of the residential properties sampled showed no contamination."

Since the lawsuit was filed, hot spots of dioxin have been found in the Saginaw River.

An earlier ruling in the case dismissed the residents' demand to make Dow pay for medical monitoring for potential health problems.

Dow contends a University of Michigan study shows that people who live in contaminated areas do not show higher levels of dioxin in their blood than people who don't live near the river.

"I am grateful for the opportunity to have worked with so many gifted people and am looking forward to my next venture," Regan, who filed a $100 million defamation suit last November, said in a statement.

Regan's ReganBooks imprint at HarperCollins published a long list of racy best sellers, including Jose Canseco's "Juiced" and Jenna Jameson's "How to Make Love Like a Porn Star." But she was fired in December 2006, less than a month after Murdoch canceled her plans to publish O.J. Simpson's allegedly fictional murder confession, "If I Did It." The book and a companion Fox television interview were greeted with widespread public outrage.

"Ms. Regan is a talented publisher who created many award-winning and best-selling books during her twelve and a half years at the company," the company said in a statement. "News Corp. thanks Ms. Regan for her outstanding contributions and wishes her continued success."

At the time of her firing, when she still had more than two years on her contract, News Corp. alleged that Regan made anti-Semitic comments to a company lawyer during an angry telephone conversation.

"This charge was completely fabricated," according to Regan's lawsuit.

"After carefully considering the matter, we accept Ms. Regan's position that she did not say anything that was anti-Semitic in nature, and further believe that Ms. Regan is not anti-Semitic," News Corp. said Friday.

Regan had also accused her former employers of asking her to lie to federal investigators about Bernard Kerik, the former New York City police commissioner who was once her lover, and had tried to smear her.

Regan said the smear campaign stems from her past intimate relationship with Kerik, who was police commissioner under former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and from the political agenda of News Corp.

Giuliani, a Republican, appointed Kerik police commissioner and recommended him to President Bush for secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Kerik had to withdraw his nomination after it was revealed he had not reported the wages he paid to a nanny. He was indicted last November, days before Regan filed her lawsuit, on counts including accusations of lying to the White House and filing false income tax returns. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.