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.)  

News from the UK:New Rights for Donor Siblings

There’s much coverage in UK papers of some new provisions of the law governing ART that just took effect.  (I’ve linked to a couple of different accounts and with a little work, you could find many more.)   These provisions make it possible for people conceived using the same donor’s sperm to locate each other.   They are generally referred to here as either half-siblings or donor siblings.  

It’s worth thinking about donor siblings for a moment.   Siblings generally are minor players in the law–they don’t have  a lot of rights vis-a-vis each other.   This makes recognition of donor siblings more strictly a social/cultural concern and less a legal one.  It also makes it a less complicated issue, since identifying a sibling doesn’t raise autonomy issues that identifying a donor might.  

But if you are not my father, who is?

Yesterday I discussed a new case from Maryland in which a married man belated asserted he was not the father of a 13-year-old daughter he’d acted as father to since her birth.   Here’s another case , this one from Indiana, that was decided at just about the same time.   It’s similar in the set-up, but quite different in the legal issue.

Barrington and Lisa Smith were married in 1985. While married, Lisa gave birth to four children.   PSS was born third, in 1992.   CWS was born in 1996.  

The Smiths divorced in 2001.  The paternity of PSS and CWS was apparently at issue in the divorce.   A guardian at litem was appointed to represent PSS in connection with the paternity inquiry.  The final divorce decree specified that Barrington Smith was not biologically related to CWS and shared custody was ordered for the other three children, including PSS.

In 2008 PSS filed suit to establish paternity.  

Wait…Maybe I’m Not Your Father After All

There’s a recent Maryland case that illustrates some of the problems that might arise if you use genetics as the sole marker of parenthood.   I light of the substantial discussion over the last couple of weeks about sperm donors, embryo mix-ups and parenthood, I thought it was worthy of comment here.  

Darren Gerard Kamp and Vicki Jo Duckworth  married in 1983.   While they were married Duckworth gave birth to four children, the youngest of whom was Julie Kamp. 

Julie Kamp was conceived in early 1992.    At the time, Kamp was working out-of-state and only visited his wife occassionally.  Perhaps even more importantly, he’d had a vasectomy in 1987.   For these reasons, even before Julie Kamp was born, both Duckworth and Kamp knew it was quite likely if not certain that Kamp was not genetically related to her. 

The Wrong Embryo: Variations on a Theme

I want to continue the wrong-embryo thread a bit longer, but before I do I want to make it clear that I am now fully in the realm of the hypothetical.   The discussion here takes off from the earlier posts, but I’m now changing facts freely just to make myself good questions. 

In the real world, the Carolyn Savage ended up pregnant after an embryo that belonged to someone else was transferred into her uterus.   Now we’ve assumed that the embryo was actually created with the other couples sperm and egg.  But suppose that is not the case.   Suppose the other couple had purchased one of the elements (let’s start with sperm) and then used it to create the embryos that were frozen.