Anonymous birth: Biographical knowledge and dyadic coping in adoptive mothers and fathers

Research on adoptive parents of anonymously born children is still scarce. Open issues are (1) examining how much biographical information is available to adoptive parents, (2) considering differences between adoptive mothers and fathers, and (3) understanding what affects their dyadic coping. Hence, this study set out to compare adoptive mothers’ and fathers’ mental health, attachment styles, dyadic coping, and biographical knowledge, and to identify predictors of dyadic coping. 62 mothers and 40 fathers (mean age: 46 years) raising an anonymously born adoptee answered online or paper-pencil versions of the Brief Symptom Inventory, Vulnerable Attachment Style Questionnaire, Dyadic Coping Inventory, Child Behavior Checklist, and a checklist of biographical data. Descriptive analyses showed that biographical knowledge was generally low in adoptive parents. More information was available on the birth mother than the birth father, with letters being the most common memorial. Furthermore, student t-tests revealed few differences: adoptive mothers reported to be more anxious and rated their ability to communicate stress and common dyadic coping as higher than did adoptive fathers. Finally, a hierarchical linear regression identified knowledge of more biographical data, parents’ older age as well as child’s younger age and higher psychopathology scores as predictors of better adoptive parents’ dyadic coping. These findings highlight the difficult task of gathering biographical information whilst maintaining the birth mother’s anonymity. They also stress the need of further research which may inform policies tailored to the specific needs of adoptive parents in the context of anonymous birth.

Anonymous birth versus child's right to identity

The right to identity of the child, internationally recognized by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, is one of the most important in the corpus of child rights. Its structure is complex since it includes several narrower rights. Nevertheless, the situations where it comes to restriction of the right to identity are not negligible. One of them is the right to anonymous birth, the possibility acknowledged by legislators in a certain number of European countries. Conflicting interests between a mother and a child are inevitable consequence of the anonymous birth. The aim of this article is to compare the right to identity of a child and the mother's right to anonymous birth as insurmountable barrier in determining biological origin. Special attention is paid to the possibility of establishing an adequate balance between their interests, by comparing the importance that national legal system offers to each of them, with appropriate arguments, several different models of motherhood regulations are presented and can be found in European legislations. The analysis also includes the stances of international bodies, especially the European Court of Human Rights.

Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Involvement of Fathers in Adoption Proceedings: A Comparative Analysis

This paper considers the involvement of fathers in decisions about adoption, particularly in circumstances where a mother resists such involvement. It is largely a response to the work of Jill Marshall, who has argued strongly in favour of anonymous birth and adoption for children (without involvement of their fathers) as a choice that can be validly exercised by mothers. The paper argues that Marshall’s views are not obviously consistent with the requirements of Article 5 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, requiring states to ‘respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents … to provide … appropriate direction and guidance’ in the child’s exercise of her rights.

La spinta verso una legislazione europea comune sul diritto di conoscere le proprie origini genetiche / The push towards common European legislation with respect to the right to know one’s genetic origins

A venti anni dalla sua approvazione, la Convenzione di Oviedo necessita di un aggiornamento. Infatti, non affronta la questione del diritto dei bambini nati da fecondazione eterologa di conoscere l’identità dei donatori di gameti. La Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo ha recentemente stabilito che: a) il diritto di conoscere le proprie origini biologiche è tutelato dall’art. 8 della Convenzione dei diritti dell’uomo; b) tale diritto deve essere bilanciato con quello della madre biologica di rimanere anonima (c.d. parto anonimo). Al fine di trovare tale bilanciamento, una possibile soluzione consiste nel richiedere ai giudici di convocare la madre per chiederle se intende revocare l’anonimato. Se la madre ribadisce la propria originaria intenzione di rimanere sconosciuta, il Tribunale non può consentire al figlio di conoscere la sua identità. Gli autori analizzano anche altre due questioni non prese in considerazione dalla Corte europea: a) l’equilibrio tra il diritto di conoscere le proprie origini e quello dei donator di gamete all’anonimato; b) se tale diritto dei bambini nati da fecondazione eterologa vincoli i genitori legali a rivelargli le modalità del concepimento. Tali problemi e l’importanza degli interessi in gioco inducono gli autori a sostenere che la scelta di usare il citato art. 8 come criterio di giudizio non è affatto ottimale. Appare preferibile affrontare queste questioni attraverso un aggiornamento della Convenzione di Oviedo o comunque con modalità tali da arrivare ad una regolamentazione che sia uniforme all’interno dell’Unione europea. ---------- Twenty years since it was opened for signature, the Oviedo Convention needs updating. It does not deal with the issue of the donor-conceived children’s right to know the identity of the gamete donors. The European Court of Human Rights has recently stated that: a) the right to know one’s biological background is protected by article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights; b) such a right must be balanced with the biological mother’s right to anonymity (anonymous birth). In order to find such balancing, a possible solution might be to require judges to summon mothers to ask them whether they would like to reverse their decision to be anonymous. If the mother reaffirms her intention to remain unknown, the court may not allow the child to learn of her identity and contact her. The authors also analyze two other issues not taken into account by the European Court: a) the balancing between the right to know one’s origins and the gamete donors’ right to anonymity; b) whether the donor-conceived children’s right to know would make it mandatory for legal parents to disclose conception procedures. These problems and the importance of the interests at stake induce the authors to argue that the choice to keep using the above mentioned article 8 as yardstick is far from ideal. It appears to be far preferable to deal with these issues while updating the Oviedo Convention or in such a way as to incentivize the enactment of legislation that would be uniform throughout the European Union.

Anonymous Birth

Although the right to know one’s origins has increasingly gathered momentum, anonymous birth remains an insurmountable obstacle to access in identifying information concerning one’s biological parents, at least within the Italian legal context. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Godelli v Italy reiterated that the problematic issue does not lie in the woman’s right to remain anonymous per se, but rather in its irreversible nature. In addition to providing an analytical account of the main legislative and judicial milestones in the regulation of anonymous birth in Italy, the present paper wishes to shed light on two issues which has thus far been disregarded: firstly, all the arguments in favour of reversibility tend to be adoptee-centred, thus failing to contemplate the rise of a similar desire for knowledge on the side of the woman and, as a result, her right to initiate a search for her child; secondly, although the multiplicity of parties concerned is often invoked as a peculiarity of as well as a source of complexity in the regulation of anonymous birth, the figure of the biological father is de facto rarely acknowledged and involved, under the controversial assumption that all undesired pregnancies which lead to anonymous birth are the result of abusive relationships.