The rights of donor inseminated children to know their genetic origins in Australia

Twenty years after it was recognised that adopted children have rights to understand their origins, the dawn has finally broken with respect to children conceived as a result of the Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART), specifically donor insemination (DI). Recipients and practitioners of conception technologies focus their energies and ethical deliberation on the achievement of pregnancy and the successful birth of the child. Law, in contrast, must focus beyond birth to enshrine respect for the rights of the child, who is 'not legally capable of defending [his or her] own future interests.' This article undertakes an assessment of what is in the best interests of a child using empirical studies to ground a position that should be adopted by law in Australia. This article also critically evaluates the current legal position of the various States and Territories with regards to a DI conceived child's rights to know of their form of conception; access to identifying information of their donor; at what age they may access information; the position of DI children born before existing legislation; record-keeping; and finally whether international law grants such children rights. Australian children must enjoy the right in theory and practice to know they were donor conceived and the identity of their donor. It is disappointing that New South Wales, as the most recent State to propose legislation on ART, has not utilised international empirical research on the best interests of DI children or even followed the Infertility Treatment Act 1995 (Vic) which seems to be far more progressive in recognising how best to protect the rights of DI children. The current legal position is chaotic. States and Territories should confer power on the Federal Government to legislate uniform and explicit regulation of ART for the benefit of DI children.     

论人工生殖子女父母身份之认定

传统民法中父母子女关系的建立,血缘与怀胎是母亲同时具备的要素,法律上兼以二者作为认定母子关系的指标。随着医学科技的发达,人工生殖技术使得血缘与怀胎间的相连性不再理所当然,不孕夫妻可以借用他人的精卵通过体内或体外受精,使妻孕育分娩子女,甚至可以将不孕夫妻的受精卵植入他人的子宫怀胎分娩,使得人类的繁衍可以在血缘之外的母体进行。生殖科技对现行法律制度提出了诸多挑战,人工生殖子女之父母身份的认定问题尤为突出。为避免因采用特殊规则形成人工生殖子女为特殊子女的不当认识,立法上应力求采用与自然生殖同样的父母认定标准确定人工授精子女的亲子关系,即依据出生事实确定谁是母亲,根据婚生推定及否认制度确定谁是父亲,丈夫的术前同意限制其对子女的婚生否认权的行使;立足于有限性开放代理孕母的观点,确定代孕子女的父母身份时,法律应突破传统的分娩者为母亲的观念,通过特殊立法规定遗传父母为代孕子女之法律父母。     

FUTURE CHILD'S RIGHTS IN NEW REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY:THINKING OUTSIDE THE TUBE AND MAINTAINING THE CONNECTIONS

This article considers whether children born through assisted human reproduction are entitled to information about their biological origins. It examines the issue both from a clinical perspective, citing social science research and the personal narratives of donor‐conceived children, and from a legal perspective, outlining the extent of a child's “right to know” in different jurisdictions. The article suggests that a uniform legal approach is needed that will recognize the right of all children to access details about their identity and conception, for the sake of their psychological well‐being. The article includes a fact scenario that considers the situation of a donor‐conceived child who has become the subject of a custody dispute, and who has not been told the circumstances of his conception.     

WHO'S YOUR DADDY?: THE INHERENT UNFAIRNESS OF THE MARITAL PRESUMPTION FOR CHILDREN OF UNMARRIED PARENTS*

Many states have marital presumptions of legitimacy, which provide children born to married parents with protection against paternity lawsuits questioning their legitimacy. However, most states do not have legitimacy presumption statutes for unmarried couples. This lack of equality between married and unmarried couples makes it so that children born to unmarried parents, who have developed a psychological bond with a man they have always thought to be their father, are not afforded the same protection as other children in similar situations, simply because their parents were not married at the time of their birth. Therefore, this Note advocates for states to amend their paternity statutes to provide protection against nonpaternity lawsuits to psychological fathers and their psychological children. State statutes should provide a psychological father with the right to be declared the legal parent of his psychological child in cases where the child's legal father has been substantially absent from the child's life.     

Identity, genealogy, and the social family: the case of donor insemination

In this paper I discuss whether or not biographical information concerning the sperm donor should be disclosed to children conceived through donor insemination. Policies of disclosure for example in the context of adoption, have been justified on the basis of a notion of identity which emphasizes genetic ties. This notion of identity and the policies of disclosure of information concerning biological parents based on it, have been criticized by many writers, including feminists, as reinforcing explanations of human organization and development based on biological determinism rather than on ideas such as social construction. Further, this notion of identity is seen to emphasize the importance of genetic parenthood over the commitment involved in bringing up a child as a social parent. While agreeing with these criticisms of that particular notion of identity, I argue that the notion of identity as a whole should not be summarily rejected. Rather, it should be re-interpreted using a sociological approach incorporating the notion of narrative. This second narrative notion of identity is developed with reference to the situation of some groups of children, who like those born from donor insemination, generally do not have any knowledge of their biological parent[s], for example adoptees, the children of the disappeared in Argentina and child migrants. In this paper, policies of disclosure which allow these children to gain some knowledge of their biological parents are discussed in light of the two notions of identity. It is argued that disclosure may be justified on the basis of a narrative notion of identity. This allows for the rigid dichotomy created between biological determinism and social construction: the importance of social parents to the child is emphasized, however the desire a child may have to know something about her or his biological parent is not denied or dismissed.     

The legal ethics of pediatric research

Since the mid- to late 1990s, the scientific and medical research community has sought to increase its access to healthy children for research protocols that involve harm or a risk of harm. This move reverses longstanding policy within that community generally to exclude healthy children from such protocols on the grounds that the research as to them is non-therapeutic, that they are particularly vulnerable to research-related abuses, and that they are unable themselves to give informed consent to their participation. The research community's new posture has been supported by prominent pediatric bioethicists who have argued that unless healthy children are included as research subjects in harmful or risky research, the pediatric population will continue to suffer relative to the adult population in the extent to which it benefits from modern advances in science and medicine. In their view, it is possible for the research community to self-administer a rule that strikes a balance between protecting healthy children from research-related abuses and allowing their inclusion in cutting-edge pediatric research. In this scheme, parental consent is central to the research community's claims about child protection. This Article explores the flaws inherent in this ethics of pediatric research. Specifically, it challenges the view from ethics that the law permits parents to consent to their children's inclusion in harmful or risky research to the extent that related invasions would meet legal maltreatment standards. More broadly, it challenges the movement to increase access to healthy children for harmful and risky research on the ground that it risks two important regressions: First, in its willingness to risk harm to individual children in the interests of the group, it threatens the progress the law has made in its development of the concept of the child as an individual worthy of respect in his or her own right, a concept that imagines parents as fiduciaries and that includes strong protections against invasions of bodily integrity. Second, in its failure to assure that the burdens of non-therapeutic research are not placed disproportionately on children of lower socioeconomic and minority status, it violates the antidiscrimination principle, which has only begun to make good on its promise of equal treatment for all children. Ultimately, this Article argues that harmonization of the rules governing pediatric research with the law of child protection and parents' consent authority is the best way to assure that children are protected in the research setting in these respects and to the same extent they are otherwise in the society.     

Through the Eyes of a Father: How PRWORA Affects Non-Resident Fathers and Their Children

Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct (PRWORA), new laws have been enacted that focus on reducingsingle-parent families’ reliance on state assistance bycollecting child support from non-custodial parents (typicallyfathers). These laws pressure fathers to pay child support throughstricter penalties for non-payment, but do not help fathersovercome barriers (eg, unstable employment) that prevent payment.In addition, PRWORA does not help fathers gain access to theirchildren, which, according to research, promotes payment andchild welfare. A literature review indicates that children whogrow up without a father experience more psychosocial difficultyand diminished well-being compared to children who grow up ina two parent household. Thus, it is recommended that the federalgovernment make greater efforts to assist fathers in their abilityto provide emotional and developmental guidance for their childrenthrough father involvement programmes. Programmes such as mediation,parenting plans, joint custody, and parental education promotethe well-being of the children and encourage non-residentialparents to fulfill their financial commitments to their offspring,reducing the need for state aid.     

婚生否认之诉原告资格的立法完善和规范适用

对于婚生否认之诉的原告,目前我国法采取了明确列举的方式,所规定的原告范围较窄。当其他可能的原告起诉时,法院或严格适用法律规范,或扩大原告范围,产生了矛盾裁判。立法应当对能够成立诉权并启动司法审判的适格原告作出周全选择和判断。基于身份权的专属性及国家意欲保护的权利和价值,亲子关系的主体,即父母、子女均有婚生否认之诉原告资格;生父仅在婚生亲子关系不利于子女最佳利益或损害公共利益时,才附条件地具有婚生否认之诉原告资格;父死亡后的继承人因无专属身份关系以及身份公益优位于财产私益的法理,不具有婚生否认之诉原告资格。在立法作出周全选择后,司法实践应当准确把握婚生否认之诉属于形成之诉的本质及立法的文义和目的,遵循形成之诉原告的法定性和封闭性,不得扩大原告范围。     

Donor, father or parent? Conceiving paternity in the Australian Family Court

Planned parenthood within the international lesbian and gay communities has attracted considerable attention and controversy in the past decade. On 5 April 2002, Guest J of the Family Court of Australia acknowledged a lesbian couple as resident parents of 2-year-old 'Patrick'. This judgement was remarkable in that it signalled a break with the well-documented international legal non-recognition of lesbian non-biological parents. However, the judgement was actually a loss for the two women, who had initiated legal proceedings in a bid to have the biological father's contact visits with the child reduced. Contrary to their wishes, the biological father was awarded increased contact and a notion of 'father' was separated in law from 'parent.' In this article, via analysis of the judgement, several issues are examined. First, one dilemma Guest J was faced with was: are the best interests of a child in a lesbian-parented family served by recognizing a father as a means for a child to make sense of his biological origins, or, by allowing the child to form and maintain a 'father-like' social relationship? This dilemma made visible the somewhat arbitrary and subjective nature of the 'best interests' standard when it comes to deciding between characterizations of paternity that recognize the symbolism of biological connections versus those that recognize the blood tie as grounds for a regular paternal social relationship. In the absence of an obvious 'best interests' conclusion, the judge found himself in the difficult position of assessing both the original terms or intent of the parental agreement between the parties and the quality of the existing social relationship between biological father and child. It is argued that his assessment of both issues was, at times, coloured by an unsubstantiated assumption that the lesbian parents' concept of kinship was irrational. The 'Patrick' case also indicated the extent to which lesbians and gay men may have entirely different expectations and understandings of 'known donor' relationships. This finding is contextualized within broader historical and political developments within lesbian and gay cultures. The author's conclusion is that there is a pressing need for legislative, policy and community-based initiatives to guide and assist individuals who identify with these communities in the task of bringing children into the world.     

“I WANT MY MOMMIES”: THE CRY FOR MINI‐DOMAS TO RECOGNIZE THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILDREN OF SAME‐SEX COUPLES*

In child custody cases, courts will look to the best interests of a child to maintain visitation/custody rights only with the child's biological parent, not third parties. However, with a same‐sex couple, it is inevitable that one parent will not be the biological parent. Thus, when that parent is in a mini‐DOMA state, where same‐sex couples from non‐mini‐DOMA states do not have to be recognized, that parent will be viewed as a third party and lose all visitation/custody rights if the couple separates. This note advocates that mini‐DOMAs allow both the biological and nonbiological parents of a same‐sex couple to have visitation/custody rights of their children if it would be in the best interest of the children to do so.     

Surrogacy,Identity, Parentage and Childrenʼs Rights – Through the Eyes of a Child

In this article I will focus on two important aspects of children's rights which are impacted by artificial reproductive technology (particularly surrogacy); being the rights to identity and the rights to legal parentage. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child acknowledges the importance of a child's right to identity, to be protected from discrimination on the basis of the status or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians or family members. For many children born through surrogacy arrangements, they may have only one or no legally recognized parent. The adults caring for them may have parental responsibility orders but this falls well short of providing children with the benefits and protections that legal parentage does. The issue of identity can be complex. Increasingly, states have recognized the importance of children knowing the circumstances of their birth and being able to access biological and genetic information including medical information. From a child's perspective the issues of identity and parenthood are intertwined. Given the importance of identity, more needs to be done to ensure that identifying information about children born as a result of artificial reproductive technology is properly stored and readily accessible for these children. Denying a child legal parentage when there are no concerns about the care being provided by their parents cannot be justified when considered from a children's rights perspective.     

Child Protection Law as an Independent Variable

Child protection professionals work in a multidisciplinary system in which the law and the family court play central roles and which collects an increasing amount of data. Yet we know little about what impact the law has on whether a child is removed by child protective services, is deemed neglected by a family court, or reunifies with a parent. Do state‐to‐state variations in child protection laws, or changes by individual states to their laws, lead to different outcomes for children and families? The dramatic variations in child welfare practice from one state to another suggest that legal variations do matter. Yet empirical research on these questions is scarce both because we collect too little data to measure all such issues, and, because we have failed to study the data we do have. This article is a plea for researchers to rectify that problem and for policymakers to improve data collection. Doing so would facilitate a more clear understanding of the law's effect on child protection outcomes and aid policymakers and advocates in identifying both promising and problematic practices and legal reforms.     

PARENTAL ATTACHMENTS AND DELINQUENCY*

Using the 1972 National Survey of Youth, we analyze attachment to mother and father along several dimensions (i.e., intimacy of communication, affectional identification, supervision, and family activities). We test two hypotheses: (1) as long as a child is strongly attached to one parent, strong ties to the other parent play an insignificant role in reducing delinquency further and (2) single-parent homes are not associated with delinquency as long as the child is strongly attached to the custodial parent. Generally, we find that children who are strongly attached to both parents have a lower probability of self-reported delinquency than children who are strongly attached to only one parent. Further, children living in single-parent homes who are strongly attached to the custodial parent generally have a greater probability of committing delinquent acts than children living in intact homes who are strongly attached to both parents.     

Minors' rights to consent to treatment: navigating the complexity of State laws

State laws recognize that a competent adult patient has the right to consent to or refuse medical treatment. While the law is clear with regard to the right of competent adults, state statutes are more complicated when the patient is a minor. While the law should, and does, attempt to balance the rights and obligations of parents and guardians against the access and privacy rights of minors, complicated state statutory schemes often fail to simultaneously address those contrasting goals in a consistent and uniform manner. The result is a confusing set of seemingly arbitrary and sometimes conflicting provisions that require the detailed attention of healthcare providers to ensure legal compliance. With the aim of helping healthcare practitioners meet their legal obligations, this Article examines state laws governing minor's consent rights byfocusing on the instances in which a minor's parent, guardian, or other authorized adult is permitted to consent to treatment on behalf of a minor and the instances in which a minor is authorized to act independent of adult intervention.     

Corporal Punishment and Kids: How Do Parent Support and Gender Influence Child Adjustment?

Previous research on corporal punishment has failed to consider the interaction of parent support and parent gender in predicting child outcomes. The current study examined whether parental support moderated the effects of corporal punishment on child outcomes (i.e., depression and aggression), and more specifically, whether the gender of the supportive parent moderated the effects of punishment from the opposite-sex parent. Results differed depending on the gender of the punishing and supportive parents, suggesting that parental support can be a protective factor in child outcomes but only under certain conditions. Mother support moderated the effects of father punishment on child depression but not child aggression. High corporal punishment by father was related to more child depression at both high and low levels of mother support. High levels of mother support only seemed important (i.e., children were less depressed) at low levels of father corporal punishment. In contrast, father support moderated the relationship between mother corporal punishment and child aggression but not depression. Children with high father support showed less aggression across all levels of mother corporal punishment. At low levels of father support, child aggression increased as mother corporal punishment increased. For depression, mother corporal punishment was positively related to child depression regardless of level of father support. These findings suggest differential effects for mother and father support and have implications for the treatment and prevention of negative outcomes in children who are physically punished by their parents.

论遗传资源获取与惠益分享中的事先知情同意制度

为了应对遗传资源利用中的"生物剽窃"现象,对遗传资源的获取与惠益分享进行有效管制,1992年《生物多样性公约》借鉴其他领域的成功经验,引入了事先知情同意的程序制度,并为各国建立国家与利益相关者的双重事先知情同意制度确立了国际法框架。事先知情同意要求遗传资源获取申请者应在其生物开发活动开展之前的合理期限内寻求相关主体的同意,在这段时间内相关主体可以根据获取申请者以合理方式提供的信息做到全面知情,并以特定格式就获取申请者的获取与惠益分享安排作出明确的、肯定的授权。     

Unintended and Unavoidable: The Failure to Protect Rule and Its Consequences for Undocumented Parents and Their Children

Parents without immigration status in the United States regularly face the threat of deportation and separation from their children. When an undocumented parent is brought to the attention of law enforcement through the child welfare system, they also face the potential of the loss of legal custodial rights to their children. The child welfare system and immigration enforcement mechanisms operate independent of one another with little regard for how actions in one can impact a parent's legal rights in the other, often permanently separating children from their parents. This article examines the particular issue of undocumented parents who are charged with the failure to protect their children from witnessing or otherwise experiencing abuse committed by a third party. It explores how such a charge, whether founded or unfounded, can result in loss of eligibility for immigration relief to which the undocumented parent would otherwise be entitled, as well as deportation of the parent and permanent separation of parent and child. These issues are situated within the larger context of the normative guideposts of both family and immigration law, namely, the best interests of the child and family unity. It identifies issues for further academic inquiry as well as tips for practitioners who may represent undocumented parents in either the family or immigration systems.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Learn about the potential consequences under family law and immigration law when an undocumented parent's child is abused by a third party
• Gain strategies for planning with undocumented parents to avoid the loss of the custody of their children in the event of a sudden deportation
• Be able to identify and address particular concerns for clients who are undocumented victims of domestic violence

     

'The good that is interred in their bones': are there property rights in the child?

Bone marrow donation between siblings is a common medical procedure. In some instances, the donor will be a young child incapable of providing either consent or assent, and the intervention is made lawful through the consent of the parent(s). Although a number of justifications have been formulated to cover this act with legitimacy, these fail to describe accurately the transaction that takes place. In the absence of the child authorising his parents to act as his proxy, it is unclear why parental consent is sufficient to permit the redistribution of his biological wealth. Instead, where the donor is such a young child, the whole procedure may be construed as the appropriation of bodily tissue from one unconsenting human and its conveyance to a third, albeit related, party. This paper argues that if the parentally authorised transfer of biological material from an unconsenting human to another is legally permissible, it must be on the basis of an implicitly acknowledged property right in the child.     

1‐800‐Skype‐Me

It is increasingly common that children of divorce are geographically separated from one of their parents. This article considers the challenges that arise from that reality by exploring this problem from a variety of perspectives and by providing practical tips to minimize the impact of the distance. A review of the Ontario caselaw and Arizona Guidelines reveal that certain factors are important in the resolution of these disputes, including: the age of the child, mode of transportation between homes, distance, prior contact, and feasibility of virtual access. Court‐ordered access may include remedies that, absent the distance issue, may be considered extreme, including moving to overnight/extended access periods for young children, permitting children to travel unaccompanied, favoring the nonresident parent for holidays and vacation time, allowing children to decrease contact with the nonresident parent, and decreasing or terminating child support. Where distance dictates the in‐person and virtual access schedules, creative solutions are critical to the successful resolution of these cases. Forward thinking family law professionals can meaningfully help parents to achieve better outcomes for children.     

Psycho-social, ethical and legal arguments for and against the retrospective release of information about donors to donor-conceived individuals in Australia

In the February 2011 report on its inquiry into the past and present practices of donor conception in Australia, the Australian Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee called for the introduction of legislation to regulate donor conception in all jurisdictions that do not have it in place "as a matter of priority". It further called for the establishment, "as a matter of priority", of a national register of donors to enable donor-conceived individuals to access identifying information about their donor. The Senate Committee left open the question as to whether the legislation and central register should have retrospective effect. This article focuses upon that question. It shows that arguments concerning the privacy, confidentiality and anonymity of some donors who may wish to remain anonymous are outweighed by the manifest injustice faced by donor-conceived individuals who are denied access to such information, as well as their families and donors who wish to exchange this information,