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.     

GAMETE DONORS AND MISTAKEN IDENTITIES: THE IMPORTANCE OF GENETIC AWARENESS AND PROPOSALS FAVORING DONOR IDENTITY DISCLOSURE FOR CHILDREN BORN FROM GAMETE DONATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

The technological advent of artificial reproduction has resulted in a substantial increase of children born from gamete donation. Studies conducted overseas, particularly in the United Kingdom, have explored the controversy as to whether or not such children have the right to know the identity of their donor parents. This article discusses the consequences of donor disclosure and donor privacy for both the parents and children. Currently, there is a lack of U.S. state legislation on the issue. While studies remain inconclusive, research indicates that counseling for the parties involved and the promulgation of state statutes may be beneficial.     

FDA approved? A critique of the artificial insemination industry in the United States

Artificial insemination by donor is becoming an increasingly popular means to achieving parenthood. While the majority of couples use artificial insemination to overcome fertility problems, many recipients use artificial insemination to avoid passing a genetic disease to their children. However, case studies reveal the inherent dangers of artificial insemination, namely the lack of proper screening methods to avoid passing genetic diseases to children born by artificial insemination. State-by-state regulation, federal guidelines, and private adjudication have all proven to be inadequate methods of regulating the artificial insemination industry. Ginsberg proposes federal regulation as the only means of achieving a safe artificial insemination industry. The proposed federal regulation would include better genetic screening, a more efficient national sperm donor system, and limited disclosure to recipients of artificial insemination and their children. These measures would help to ensure that couples using artificial insemination get what they expect--healthy sperm, a safe artificial insemination process, and ultimately, a healthy child.     

Dodging the Donor Daddy Drama: Creating a Model Statute for Determining Parental Status of Known Sperm Donors

Despite recent innovations in alternative reproduction technology and the increased use of artificial insemination procedures, courts and legislatures have been unable to develop a clear and consistent test to establish the parental rights and obligations of sperm donors. As a result, there are mixed outcomes in cases where intended parents seek child support from an unsuspecting donor or when donors petition the court for visitation with their biological children. This Note seeks to resolve the ambiguity in determining sperm donors’ parental status by proposing a model state statute that makes nonpaternity the default rule. Under the statute, sperm donors would not be subject to any of the parental rights or obligations of a traditional biological father. However, the presumption of nonpaternity could be overcome if the parties agree, in writing, prior to the insemination. Further, the model statute provides an exception to the default rule if the donor has played an active role in the child's life. Adopting this model statute will not only facilitate a market for sperm donation but also make donor rights and obligations clear from the onset.

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Today, infants born using artificial reproduction technology (ART) represent more than one percent of children born in the United States annually.
• When a donor is anonymous, the law is clear: the donor is not a legal parent. However, the law regarding known donors is less straightforward. Depending on the state and the particular circumstances, the parental status of a known donor is questionable.
• The ambiguity in the law creates confusion and disagreement among the parties in a donor agreement. By comparing factually similar cases, in which courts interpreted donor statutes with identical language, in completely opposite ways, it is easy to see the unpredictability in ART cases.
• The proposed model statute provides unambiguous legislation that sets out a clear standard to be used in determining the parental status of known donors. If adopted by state legislatures, courts across the country would finally have a consistent rule to apply, leading to less confusion and contradictory rulings.
• The key issue is honoring intentional parentage and the proactive choice to use ART to have a child on one's own terms.

     

Ensuring Insurance for Foster Care: Requiring Foster Parents to Obtain Liability Insurance to Cover Harm Done to Foster Children in their Care

This Note proposes that all states should require that foster parents have liability insurance before children are placed in their care. This Note also proposes that the liability insurance needs to cover not just harm to third parties but also harm to the foster children through the negligent acts of the foster parents. This legislation will allow foster children to have standing to bring claims against their foster parents and insurance companies and give them a greater opportunity for recovery. Currently, the policies and statutes governing the policies in place do not cover all types of harm that can occur during the foster parent–child relationship. Certain policies leave children who are harmed by their foster parents’ negligence unable to recover any damages from the people who have harmed them. Because foster parents can be left to defend the actions themselves, they often become judgment proof due to their low income, leaving the children who are harmed with little chance of recovery.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• States need to require foster parents to obtain liability insurance, which covers harm done by the foster children to third parties, harm to the home, and any harm done to the child by the foster parents.

     

MOVING BEYOND GENERALIZATIONS AND STEREOTYPES TO DEVELOP INDIVIDUALIZED APPROACHES FOR WORKING WITH FAMILIES AFFECTED BY PARENTAL INCARCERATION

Competing narratives about incarcerated parents and their children are provided by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (“ASFA”) and the Children of Incarcerated Parents Bill of Rights (“Bill of Rights”). Both the “child‐at‐risk” narrative of ASFA and the “good mother” narrative of the Bill of Rights are stereotyped and oversimplified and contribute, in opposite ways, to misperceptions about incarcerated parents and their children by suggesting a uniformity of situations and appropriate responses that does not actually exist. The time‐driven approach of ASFA—and many state termination of parental rights statutes—is overly rigid, while the Bill of Rights overlooks important differences among families, as well as tensions and trade‐offs among policy choices. In actuality, the situations of the parents and children involved vary widely and defy easy analysis and solutions. We should therefore be taking an individualized, qualitative approach that is nuanced and based on actual information about incarcerated parents and their children, rather than a quantitative, categorical approach based on generalized and simplistic assumptions. Only if we recognize and grapple with the complexities of parental incarceration can we develop sound legal and social policy to meet the needs of these families.     

“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.     

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.     

State secrets: access to information under the Human Reproductive Technology Act 1991 (WA)

Many Australian children have a biological father who gave his sperm so that the child's mother could conceive and raise them. Many of these children, and their parent(s), do not know who that biological father is. However, some want to know. The article examines the Western Australian law on access to information about the identity of parties in these arrangements. It is argued that there is an implied right to access identifying information where all parties consent to the exchange of information; that this right has been ignored in official and medical practice and opportunities for good record-keeping missed; and that the current law allows a parent to give consent to the exchange of identifying information on behalf of their child at any time after the child is conceived.     

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。     

Reforming Relocation Law: An Evidence‐Based Approach

In recent years, there has been much discussion within international fora about the need for a greater consensus on how to approach relocation cases. Empirical research on the lived experience of parents and children who have been through relocation disputes has an important role to play in providing an evidence base for decisions on policy. In this article, we summarize the findings of a 5‐year prospective longitudinal study of relocation disputes in Australia and make recommendations in the light of this and other research evidence concerning a new approach to relocation law. We argue that there should be no presumptions. Nonetheless there is an appropriate place for legislative or appellate guidance on how to approach these disputes. “Good faith” should be irrelevant to decision making, and children should not be placed in the center of the conflict. The adjudication of relocation disputes should be on the basis of asking three questions: First, how close is the relationship between the nonresident parent and the child and how important is that relationship developmentally to the child? Second, if the relocation is to be permitted, how viable are the proposals for contact with the nonresident parent? Third, if the relationship between the child and the nonresident parent is developmentally important to the child and is likely to be diminished if the move is allowed, then (a) what are the viable alternatives to the parents living a long distance apart? and (b) is a move with the primary caregiver the least detrimental alternative?

Key Points for the Family Court Community
• Describes the findings of empirical research on relocation disputes in Australia on the lived experience of children and families postrelocation disputes.
• Reviews various features of relocation law and proposals for reform in the light of this research evidence.
• Proposes an approach to deciding relocation cases based upon three essential questions.

     

Legal parent versus biological parent: the impact of disclosure

This article addresses arguments regarding disclosure of information to donor-conceived individuals, showing that disclosure is entirely different from the recognition of parental rights and responsibilities for the gamete providers. It argues that disclosure of information is not equivalent to saying: "donors are parents". Instead, information release simply provides a basis for donors, donor-conceived individuals and recipient parents to exchange information about themselves. When a jurisdiction enacts laws that provide for such information release, these statutes are distinct from any other legal rights and responsibilities for any members of the donor-conceived community. In its first section, the article briefly explains the means for determining legal parentage before reviewing research on how parents tell their children about their means of conception. Next, it explores studies of why members of the donor-conceived world search, providing an empirical basis for the claim that disclosure does not equal parenthood. The article explores concerns about information release, and, in the final section, suggests possible approaches for protecting the rights of donor-conceived people while reinforcing the legal separation between social and biological parents.     

WHERE IS THE JUSTICE? PARENTAL EXPERIENCES OF THE CANADIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM IN CASES OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE*

Research concerning child victims of sexual abuse in the judicial system cites largely negative experiences and outcomes. However, few investigations focus on parental experiences of the justice system. Using a grounded theory method this Canadian study explored parental experiences of legal and judicial processes for child sexual abuse victims. Nineteen in‐depth interviews with parents encountering the justice system, as well as interviews with professionals working in those systems were analyzed. Results show a wide range of experiences, with parents reporting predominantly negative outcomes that potentially impede healing for children, indicating earlier judicial reforms have not been realized. Recommendations call for structural changes in the judicial system and more provision of parent‐focused supports.     

Labor Policy and the Social Meaning of Parenthood

The article explores an aspect of the debate over the place of women in the paid labor force. Focusing on disputes over "protective" labor policies, "fetal protection" policies in particular, the essay discusses the implications of such policies for the social meaning of parenthood. Using data from inter-views with 49 mothers and 37 fathers of children in neonatal intensive care units, the essay presents evidence suggesting that traditional social values in-herent in female-exclusive labor policies are inadequate when one is dealing with the practical needs of parents. A policy that views women as nurturing and men as economically active resides in assumptions that women have the sole biological connection to children and overly determines a narrow conception of parenthood. The parents in this sample demonstrate the ongoing and complex negotiations involved in parenting, negotiations that labor policies have often ignored.     

家事诉讼与儿童利益保护

儿童利益是一种身份利益,具有显著的公益性,国家与社会必须给予特殊保护。涉及儿童的家事审判要遵循儿童利益最大化、儿童参与以及儿童优先保护等原则。从我国家事审判立法看,涉及儿童利益保护的规定散见于诸多的法律、司法解释以及政策性文件中,这些规定尽管为家事司法提供了基本的依据,但缺憾亦非常明显,表现为没有上位法的原则性规定,没有形成体系完整、结构合理的专门制度,部分立法规范前后矛盾,缺乏科学性和严谨性,缺乏实现儿童利益最大化的具体程序和相关配套机制。为此,有必要在基本法和部门法层面确立儿童利益最大化的法律原则;保障儿童表达意见权利和诉讼参与权;从司法层面看,确认儿童的诉讼主体地位,确立涉儿童家事案件职权探知、职权调查原则,建立专业化的家事审判机构。通过上述多重举措,真正实现家事审判对儿童利益的充分保障。     

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.     

Establishing Identity: How Direct‐to‐Consumer Genetic Testing Challenges the Assumption of Donor Anonymity

The rise of direct‐to‐consumer genetic testing is challenging the rules and expectations of the fertility industry concerning donor anonymity. While ethicists debate whose rights should prevail, many donor conceived people, recipient parents and donors are currently sharing their genetic information, along with methods to identify genetic links, in vast online communities, invalidating donor anonymity and providing a platform for those who advocate globally for legislative change to support donor‐linking practices. This article looks at why it is important to access this information in relation to identity and kinship formation and how the Family Court Community can apply this knowledge in order to achieve better outcomes for children and families.     

The foster family in Poland,a custodial and educational environment (XX – the early XXI centuries)

ABSTRACT

A thorough study of the sources made it possible to conduct a retrospective analysis as well as outline normative and legal principles of the foster family in Poland as one of the main forms of child custody in the XX – early XXI centuries rooted in national traditions and social legacy. Foster family formation and early functioning indicate that its value depends on who is entrusted with a child to care for, what child is to be placed in foster care, what kind of support a foster family could expect, what control is exercised over it. The second half of the XX – the early XXI centuries mark the evolution of the legal and regulatory framework underlying foster care, one of the main institutional forms of child custody in Poland. It appears that the foster family provides a child with proper living conditions and a favourable environment for its education and socialisation, closest possible to those in a natural family. To this end, the state is to make sure that potential foster parents are properly trained. The development of foster care speeds up in the 1970’s and 1990’s. We have discovered that at the turn of the century, foster family functioning, provision of care and adequate conditions for a child’s development and upbringing etc. are defined by the social policy of the state. Of great significance for the international community is the Polish experience regarding the requirements for foster family candidates, children’s placement in such families, material assistance, foster parent salary calculations; the amount of money biological parents must pay for their child’s placement in a foster family. In modern Poland the foster family is an important social institution which promotes the development of a child deprived of parental care and is prioritized over other institutional forms of care.     

WHEN JAIL FAILS: AMENDING THE ASFA TO REDUCE ITS NEGATIVE IMPACT ON CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS

The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) requires states begin termination proceedings when a child resides in foster care for fifteen out of the last twenty‐two months. Many states interpret this to mean that an incarcerated parent is unfit when they leave their child in foster care just because they are separated from their children. Parents and children can still have meaningful relationships even when separated. Thus, parental unfitness should depend on many factors such as the relationship with the child, age of the child, and ability to provide support for the child—not just the time spent away from the child. This Note advocates for the amendment of ASFA to include factors courts should consider when terminating the parental rights of incarcerated parents and encouraged states to focus not on a time frame for termination, but rather consideration of circumstances relevant to each individual family. States should incorporate the factors into their state laws. Further, states should actively work with prisoners and their children to help maintain contact and if possible, reunify families after incarcerations. These services will help prevent the need for termination after a parent completes their sentence and will help to reduce recidivism.     

'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.