Cusband and Wife? And What About the Children?

While I was off eating turkey and the like, a whole bunch of comments piled up here.  I’ve tried to work through most of them, but I wanted to get this up to, even if it is short. 

This story appeared in yesterday’s NYT.   It’s about marriage between first cousins, which is illegal in much of the United States, but permissible in a few states and many countries and cultures.   Indeed, the article notes that slightly more than 10% of marriages world-wide are between first cousins.  (I believe that my grandparents, who came from Eastern Europe, were second cousins or closer.) 

Many people object to first cousin marriages, and quite a few do so based on concerns about the possibility of an increased risk of genetic defects in their offspring.   The article devotes a good deal of space to this concerns and refers to a 2002 study showing less risk than had been expected and also a couple of competing views in the study.  

What Makes DNA So Difficult?

After reading the NYT magazine article, writing about it a bit and then reading the comments to my posts and on the magazine site, I’m left with this question:   What makes DNA so difficult?   Surely it must have seemed that having reliable and relatively inexpensive DNA testing would make legal parentage questions easier.   Why hasn’t it worked out that way.

As one commenter on this blog pointed out, DNA does make determination of biological parentage easy—it’s a scientific test that yields a simple yes/no with a very high degree of reliability.   It guarantees that all children will have two parents (one male and one female.) 

But its very strength is also its weakness.  While DNA gives us a clear and clean answer, the lives of many children are not so clear and clean.   DNA is  inflexible and fail to account for the diversity of children’s lives.   

DNA and the Power of An Idea

One of the most interesting stories in today’s NYT magazine feature on DNA (see yesterday’s post, too) is the tale of Denny Ogden and D’Arcy Griggs.   I’ll summarize it here.  

D’Arcy Griggs was 34 years old when she called Denny Ogden and said he was her father.   Ogden knew that a woman he had had a summer romance with in college had become pregnant and given the child up for adoption.  He’d never traced that child.   He had married and had three more children.   He was 54 when D”Arcy Griggs called. 

She said she had tracked him down after her birth mother died of cancer.   He checked her background to make sure it wasn’t some swindle and then they began exchanging e-mails.  He began to think of her as his daughter.   They reveled in the little things they had in common.   After a few months, they decided to meet and he came to Seattle where she lived.  

Which Man Is Father To The Child?

There’s an excellent and fascinating article in the New York Times magazine (publication date tomorrow, but on-line now.)    It’s  a look at a problem that has arisen with comparatively easy DNA testing.   What happens when men learn that the children they are raising are not genetically related to them.  

I’ve written about this a bit before, but the article offers far more extended consideration than I’ve managed in a short post.   It also raises a number of different issues, primarily using individual stories to make its points and raise its questions.  

There are a few things that stand out for me.    First, as Ruth Padawer (the author) notes, in the cases discussed when a man finds out that the child he has been raising is not genetically related to him he also learns that the woman who gave birth to the child (in these cases his wife) has lied to him.  He learns she has been unfaithful to him.    

Sperm Donors and Fathers

This story appeared in what was once our local paper and is now internet only.   (And it looks like they picked it up from Redbook.)  It’s a fine account of one’s man discovery that he and his wife needed to use a sperm donor and his thoughts about that process.  

I don’t suppose I have all that much to add to it, though it ties back to lengthy discussions on this blog about sperm donors (anonymous and otherwise.)     Like many people who have written here, Gary Blitt wasn’t sure how he’d feel about a child conceived with donor sperm.   But as time passes, there’s no question that he is his daughter’s father.  He’ll be the one to teach her to read box scores and change the diapers.  

Perhaps it is true, as he says, that his sperm wouldn’t even have been as good as the donor’s was.   But what is more important to me, at least, as that every day in real life he is the father of this child.  

Men as Parents and the Power of Public Appreciation

There was a story in yesterday’s New York Times that I thought worth a little discussion.  The story was in the science section and is about fathers and parenthood.  (I am not sure the NYT headline really suits the article, but that’s really beside the point.)   It made me think about some of the recent discussion here. 

One thing the article notes is detrimental effect of social messaging that excludes men/fathers.   These paragraphs caught my attention: 

Uninvolved fathers have long been accused of lacking motivation. But research shows that many societal obstacles conspire against them. Even as more fathers are changing diapers, dropping the children off at school and coaching soccer, they are often pushed aside in ways large and small.

Adoptive Parents and the Genetic Link

There’s been ongoing discussion here  (that link is just one example) about the importance of a genetic connection between parent and child.  As I have made clear, I am not persuaded that a person who can claim a genetic link with a child should therefore been recognized as a legal parent.   Hence, I think a man who provides sperm to a woman need not be the father of that child.   Others have strongly disagreed.  We’ve had long discussions about it. 

Arguably, this isn’t simply a matter of opinion.  This is a question where there might be useful evidence to consider and occasional reference has been made to one or another study of some of the questions raised.     I read a paper the other day which makes an interesting contribution here.   It’s from the American Sociological Review, February 2007 and is by Laura Hamilton, Simon Cheng Brian Powell.  (I’ve linked you to the table of contents the article is not on-line.  If anyone wants a copy, you can e-mail me.)  

The authors wanted to examine the importance of biological ties for parental investment.  

What Does It Mean That A Child is “Yours?”: Thinking About ART Mistakes

Here’s a thought-provoking piece from The Guardian, UK.   It ties back to some of my earlier thoughts about ART mistakes. (The most recent string was occasioned by the “wrong embryo” case featured on the Today show not so long ago.)  

As the article notes, while uncertainty about paternity has been around forever, uncertainty about maternity is a new problem.   Time was a woman gave birth and we knew she was the mother.   Now?  She may not be legally recognized as the mother of the child (because in a jurisdiction that enforces surrogacy agreements a woman who gives birth is not necessarily a mother).   And she may be legally recognized, but she may not be genetically related to the child.   In this brave new world, women as well as men may now need to ask ”Is this child mine?”   

This question–is the child mine-is a fascinating one.   To say that this thing or that thing is mine is to claim possession.   Children, of course, are not possessions, nor can they be possessed.   As it is used in this article (and in the Michael Jackson’s Billie Jean) the question is really one about genetic lineage–was my genetic material used to create this child

CA Case About Hierarchy–Too Many Dads?

A few days back I wrote a couple of broad posts about the hierarchy of parenthood.  They were pretty abstract, not rooted in any case.  But here is a recent case  from California that shows what I mean. 

Maybe I should note first that hierarchy cases usually arise in a specific circumstance–when more people are claiming status as legal parents than can be allowed.   So here, for example, two men claim to be the father but only one can be recognized as a father.  

When this happens the court must choose among the contestants.   That might mean making an individualized decision about the best interest of a child, but for reasons I discussed earlier it more typically means reference to some hierarchy.   Just as in poker, a full house beats two pair, so in parenthood, some grounds for claiming parenthood will beat others.  

 I’d distinguish this from two other situations.  Sometimes we’re looking for someone to take on the status (and obligations) of  parent and we are short of volunteers.  When this happens, the court just needs to find someone it can assign the role and there is generally no comparison among possible candidates–after all, the premise of this is that we are short of volunteers.  

The Hierarchy of Parenthood, II

Yesterday I began to consider whether there needs to be some consistent hierarchy among the various tests for who gets to be a legal parent.   It will be a good deal easier for you to follow this discussion of you read yesterday’s post first.    While some of what I have to say here today is repetitive, it’s a bit more organized and also expanded.  

Yesterday I laid out six possible tests for legal parentage, each of which is used at least some of the time in some places.   I’ve been thinking about the thought-process that has to accompany trying to develop an answer to the “do we need a hierarchy” question.  

Perhaps the first thing to do is to examine each test and consider the arguments for an against it.  I think for the most part I’ve done this in various posts over the last nearly-two years, so for the moment I’ll skip it.  (If you are interested, do feel free to poke around in the archives.  You can try using the relevant tags, which should be helpful.)