Michael’s Clan

Author(s):  
Rosanna Hertz ◽  
Margaret K. Nelson

The same-sex couples highlighted in this narrative are members of the “families of choice” cohorts that arose during the 1980s. Although they were establishing a new family form, the mothers in a two-mother family told their child that he had a sperm donor “father” whom he could meet when he turned eighteen. When the meeting occurred, the two formed a limited father-child bond. The donor provides emotional support, but he does not offer any material support. When other offspring from the same donor contact him, the donor introduced the donor siblings to each other. The members of this network reconsider ideas about the relative influence of nature and nurture. Yet ideas about chosen families remain central to the manner in which the members relate to one another. Born between 1986 and 1990, the kids in this network were between twenty-four and twenty-eight years old at the time of the interviews.

Author(s):  
Claire Fenton-Glynn

This chapter examines the interpretation of ‘family life’ under Article 8 and the way that this has evolved throughout the Court’s history. It contrasts the approach of the Court to ‘family life’ between children and mothers, with ‘family life’ between fathers and children, noting the focus of the Court on function over form. It then turns to the establishment of parenthood, both in terms of maternity and paternity, as well as the right of the child to establish information concerning their origins. Finally, the chapter examines the changing face of the family, considering new family forms, including same-sex couples and transgender parents, as well as new methods of reproduction, such as artificial reproductive techniques and surrogacy.


Author(s):  
Joyce Kauffman

This chapter describes the intersection of the author’s personal experience as a lesbian mother with her work as an activist and lawyer as well as the challenges involving the end of her relationship with her daughter’s other mother, who was not a legal parent. In 1978, she helped organize the first Lesbian Mothers’ Day Celebration on the steps of the State House in Boston; in 1984, she gave birth to her daughter; in 1993, Adoption of Tammy (the first appellate brief she ever wrote) was decided—giving same-sex couples the right to adopt in Massachusetts; and in 2002, she successfully petitioned the Court to allow a three-parent adoption, creating for the first time a legally recognized relationship between her former partner and their daughter. The chapter concludes with observations—based on personal and professional experience—about the work that remains to be done in order to protect LGBTQ families.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
M. Simopoulou ◽  
K. Sfakianoudis ◽  
P. Tsioulou ◽  
A. Rapani ◽  
G. Anifandis ◽  
...  

Surrogacy is an assisted reproduction-based approach in which the intended parents assign the gestation and birth to another woman called the surrogate mother. The drivers of surrogacy refer largely to infertility, medical conditions, same-sex couples’ parenting, and cases of diversity regarding sexual identity and orientation. Surrogacy consists of a valid option for a variety of conditions or circumstances ranging from medical to social reasons. However, surrogacy may be associated with risks during the preimplantation, prenatal, and neonatal period. It became obvious during the exhaustive literature research that data on surrogacy and its association with factors specific to the IVF practice and the options available were not fully represented. Could it be that surrogacy management adds another level of complexity to the process from the ovarian stimulation, the subsequent IVF cycle, and the techniques employed within the IVF and the Genetic Laboratory to the fetal, perinatal, and neonatal period? This work emphasizes the risks associated with surrogacy with respect to the preimplantation embryo, the fetus, and the infant. Moreover, it further calls for larger studies reporting on surrogacy and comparing the surrogate management to that of the routine IVF patient in order to avoid suboptimal management of a surrogate cycle. This is of particular importance in light of the fact that the surrogate cycle may include not only the surrogate but also the egg donor, sperm donor, and the commissioning couple or single person.


2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 183-196
Author(s):  
Mary Welstead

Many couples in same-sex relationships are as enthusiastic in their desire to become parents as those who are in heterosexual relationships. Adoption, surrogacy, sperm donation, have all enabled same-sex couples to achieve their parental ambitions and create families. For the most part, they have done so without any interference by, or involvement with, the biological parents after the birth of their children.Whilst the majority of lesbian parents tend to use sperm which has been obtained from an anonymous donor, some women have shown a preference to use a sperm donor who is known to them to become the biological father of their children.This may be because they want to know the background, personality and medical history of a potential father before embarking on the procreative process. In some cases, it may also be because some women want their children to have a male role model in their life. Using a known sperm donor can, however, involve risks for would-be-mothers if, contrary to the father’s wishes, they do not want him to play a significant role in the child’s life. Their dreams of creating an autonomous nuclear family may be destroyed and replaced with a new form of extended family, consisting of three or even four parents if the biological father has a partner. The tale recounted in the Appeal Court judgment in A v B and C (Lesbian co-parents: role of father) (2012) is a cautionary one for lesbian would-be-parents and one of hope for potential biological fathers who are known to them. The Court of Appeal emphasised the paramountcy of the welfare principle, contained in s1(1) of the Children Act 1989 in resolving all child contact disputes. It declined to elicit any further principles in these difficult fact specific cases and stated that the sexual orientation of the parents and their pre-conceptual agreements, or understandings, spoken or unspoken are either irrelevant (per Thorpe LJ) or relevant but not determinative (per Black LJ).* Dr Mary Welstead, CAP Fellow, Harvard Law School, Visiting Professor of Family Law, University of Buckingham.[1] Re G; Re Z (Children: Sperm Donors: Leave to Apply for Children Act Orders) [2013] 1 FLR 1334.


2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 258-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher A. Pepping ◽  
Anthony Lyons ◽  
W. Kim Halford ◽  
Timothy J. Cronin ◽  
John E. Pachankis

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document