This document summarizes key literature on emerging legal definitions of parentage with assisted reproductive technologies (ART). It finds that while traditional definitions of father and mother are generally upheld for married couples using artificial insemination by donor, complications have arisen for surrogacy arrangements and its use by single/lesbian couples. In these cases, courts and statutes increasingly rely on the intentions of the parenting parties to determine legal parentage. However, a preference remains for married, heterosexual couples. The document calls for clinical practitioners to play a greater role in ART arrangements to help avoid disputes between parties.
In this paper the author discusses the social problem of the marked over-representation of African American families and children within the child welfare system. The author also discusses the need for her proposed legal and social services program to address over-representation.
KAFKAS ÜNİVERSİTESİ/KAFKAS UNIVERSITY
SOCIOLOGY
Course
LECTURE NOTES AND POWER POINT PRESENTATIONS
Prof.Dr. Halit Hami ÖZ
Kars, TURKEY
hamioz@yahoo.com
This is a preliminary report on the abuse and neglect of persons in residential treatment for “substance abuse” in the U.S.A. There have been violations of human rights, lack of investigation, prosecution and punishment of the offenders. This prevailing permissive environment has given de jure or de facto amnesty to those who violate human rights. Starting in the 1970’s there were residential treatment facilities for teens that were found to be abusive. The SEED, Straight Inc. and its derivatives, Roloff Homes, WWASPS and, more recently, Teen Challenge were adjudicated “guilty” of human rights abuses. This report explores the ways these perpetrators of abuse have used the political system to protect themselves and exploit loopholes in the law to expand their network of abusive residential treatment facilities for youth.
Women and prescription on opioids is focus of this research paper. The author examines the history of prescription opioids and their affect on women in the United States. The author also discusses that state of the prescription opioids epidemic as well as the policies and regulations trying to address it.
In this paper the author discusses the social problem of the marked over-representation of African American families and children within the child welfare system. The author also discusses the need for her proposed legal and social services program to address over-representation.
KAFKAS ÜNİVERSİTESİ/KAFKAS UNIVERSITY
SOCIOLOGY
Course
LECTURE NOTES AND POWER POINT PRESENTATIONS
Prof.Dr. Halit Hami ÖZ
Kars, TURKEY
hamioz@yahoo.com
This is a preliminary report on the abuse and neglect of persons in residential treatment for “substance abuse” in the U.S.A. There have been violations of human rights, lack of investigation, prosecution and punishment of the offenders. This prevailing permissive environment has given de jure or de facto amnesty to those who violate human rights. Starting in the 1970’s there were residential treatment facilities for teens that were found to be abusive. The SEED, Straight Inc. and its derivatives, Roloff Homes, WWASPS and, more recently, Teen Challenge were adjudicated “guilty” of human rights abuses. This report explores the ways these perpetrators of abuse have used the political system to protect themselves and exploit loopholes in the law to expand their network of abusive residential treatment facilities for youth.
Women and prescription on opioids is focus of this research paper. The author examines the history of prescription opioids and their affect on women in the United States. The author also discusses that state of the prescription opioids epidemic as well as the policies and regulations trying to address it.
Defines kinship and explains its importance. Reviews the biological and sociological constants of kinship; Previews the topicsto be covered in marriage, family and larger kinship units.
Freeman 1 Brandon Freeman Professor Lee English 10.docxshericehewat
Freeman 1
Brandon Freeman
Professor Lee
English 101
25 February 2017
Problems with Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Definition of the Family
It is not unusual for people to think of a family in its basic form as a mother and a
father and the child or children they conceive together. But a genetic connection
between parents and children is not necessary for a family to exist. New families are
often created by remarriage after a divorce or the death of a spouse, so that only one
parent is genetically related to the child or children. Also, the practice of adoption is
long-standing and creates families where neither parent is genetically related to the
child or children. There are many single-parent families in the United States, and some
of these may be families where the parents live together but are not married (Coontz
147). Couples that consist of two men or two women are also increasingly common, and
more of these couples now also have or want children (Buchanan). Although there is no
universal definition of the family, in recent years scholars have established that the
“normative” definition in most societies is “at least one parent and one child.” This
definition goes on to say that a child does not have to be genetically related to the
parent, and “children conceived through artificial insemination or a surrogate mother”
count (Munro and Munro 553). Though we may accept the idea that the definition of the
“normative” family is a broad one and that no biological relationship is needed for a
parent and child to form a family, for many people genetic heritage remains an
important factor in describing who they are and how they relate to other members of
their family. This thinking, which persists despite the broad variety of families that now
Freeman 2
exist, provokes particular conflicts for members of families that are created with the new
methods of assisted reproductive technology, methods that are new in human history,
having developed only over the past few decades.
Assisted reproductive technology (including artificial insemination and in vitro
fertilization) is often used when one member of a male-female couple is infertile; the
resulting child is usually related to at least one member of the couple.1 This technology
is also used to allow male-male and female-female couples to have children. In 2005,
52,041 children were born in the United States through assisted reproductive
technology, an increase of more than a hundred percent from 1996 (United States 61). It
can be argued that the new families formed through artificial reproductive technology
“tend to be stronger and more highly functioning than naturally conceived ones, because
the parents are so motivated to have children, and so gratified once they arrive” (Mundy
1
This paper uses the term assisted reproductive technology for both ...
0Adolescent Minorities in Foster Care Systems and thSilvaGraf83
0
Adolescent Minorities in Foster Care Systems and the Inadequate Attention They Receive from Society
Aliyah Jordan
College of Arts, Culture and Scientific Inquiry, University of West Georgia
SOCI 3001: Communicating Sociology
Angela Brodsky
April, 2021
Adoption & foster care have fought a continuous battle with providing children with proper stable homes to live in. Not accounting for the external factors (such as irresponsible guardians) there, are many internal factors that contribute to the instability of the foster care system. Researching and examining the infrastructure of the foster care system led to several discoveries about the many flaws that exist within the system. The lack of resources, quality assurance (between guardian and child) & unorganized administration, has led to numerous counts of children being lost and/or destroyed by a system “intended” to aid them. Yet, at the same time the foster care system also fails in reforming the parents (or former guardians) of the children. The judicial system ensures that many parents receive a TPR (termination of parental rights) essentially severing the relationship between parent & child, while also contributing to the psychological trauma of foster care. Nonetheless the near future of foster care seems optimistic due to the various changes in factors of the system such as, transracial adoption & LGBTQ individuals moving to adopt. To enhance and strengthen my understanding of foster care these articles were examined under a thematic approach. With the goal of identifying the consistencies of instability that chaotically hamper the foster care system.
The supposed reformations that are to be provided to parents, separated from their children, does not effectively exist within the foster care system. While on the other hand many parents fail to make the proper steps towards their own reformation, the system fails to support those afflicted by a mental illness (specifically fathers). “Issues with mental health…contribute to fathers engaging in abusive or neglectful behaviors toward children.” Accounted sources of child abuse have documented evidence of an underlying affliction (or substance abuse), that negatively impaired the judgement & actions of many fathers. It is essential for many children that their parental relationship be healthy, and fathers are the foundational step within this model. Many fathers who have lost their rights allowed their afflictions to impede their commitment to parenting overall. “Might help fathers to identify how his mental health issue affects the way he conceptualizes himself as a father.” Inversely, while identifying the source of many abuse cases, it would be also beneficial for these fathers to be given the proper supports to improve themselves and evaluate their ability & aptitude. While there are expectations of responsibility already set upon the parents, there must be greater expectations set for the foster care system.
The stand ...
0
Adolescent Minorities in Foster Care Systems and the Inadequate Attention They Receive from Society
Aliyah Jordan
College of Arts, Culture and Scientific Inquiry, University of West Georgia
SOCI 3001: Communicating Sociology
Angela Brodsky
April, 2021
Adoption & foster care have fought a continuous battle with providing children with proper stable homes to live in. Not accounting for the external factors (such as irresponsible guardians) there, are many internal factors that contribute to the instability of the foster care system. Researching and examining the infrastructure of the foster care system led to several discoveries about the many flaws that exist within the system. The lack of resources, quality assurance (between guardian and child) & unorganized administration, has led to numerous counts of children being lost and/or destroyed by a system “intended” to aid them. Yet, at the same time the foster care system also fails in reforming the parents (or former guardians) of the children. The judicial system ensures that many parents receive a TPR (termination of parental rights) essentially severing the relationship between parent & child, while also contributing to the psychological trauma of foster care. Nonetheless the near future of foster care seems optimistic due to the various changes in factors of the system such as, transracial adoption & LGBTQ individuals moving to adopt. To enhance and strengthen my understanding of foster care these articles were examined under a thematic approach. With the goal of identifying the consistencies of instability that chaotically hamper the foster care system.
The supposed reformations that are to be provided to parents, separated from their children, does not effectively exist within the foster care system. While on the other hand many parents fail to make the proper steps towards their own reformation, the system fails to support those afflicted by a mental illness (specifically fathers). “Issues with mental health…contribute to fathers engaging in abusive or neglectful behaviors toward children.” Accounted sources of child abuse have documented evidence of an underlying affliction (or substance abuse), that negatively impaired the judgement & actions of many fathers. It is essential for many children that their parental relationship be healthy, and fathers are the foundational step within this model. Many fathers who have lost their rights allowed their afflictions to impede their commitment to parenting overall. “Might help fathers to identify how his mental health issue affects the way he conceptualizes himself as a father.” Inversely, while identifying the source of many abuse cases, it would be also beneficial for these fathers to be given the proper supports to improve themselves and evaluate their ability & aptitude. While there are expectations of responsibility already set upon the parents, there must be greater expectations set for the foster care system.
The stand ...
2 ajob Winter 2001, Volume 1, Number 1 2001 by The MIT P.docxvickeryr87
2 ajob Winter 2001, Volume 1, Number 1
� 2001 by The MIT Press
Pre co ncep tio n Ge nd er S ele ctio n
Preconception Gender Selection1
John A. Robertson, School of Law, University of Texas at Austin
Safe and effective methods of preconception gender selection through �ow cytometric separation
of X- and Y-bearing sperm could greatly increase the use of gender selection by couples contem-
plating reproduction. Such a development raises ethical, legal, and social issues about the impact
of such practices on offspring, on sex ratio imbalances, and on sexism and the status of women.
This paper analyzes the competing interests in preconception gender selection, and concludes that
its use to increase gender variety in a family, and possibly for selecting the gender of �rstborn,
might in many instances be ethically acceptable.
Advances in genetics and reproductive technology
present prospective parents with an increasing
number of choices about the genetic makeup of
their children. Those choices now involve the use
of carrier and prenatal screening techniques to
avoid the birth of children with serious genetic dis-
ease, but techniques to choose nonmedical charac-
teristics will eventually be available. One
nonmedical characteristic that may soon be within
reach is the selection of offspring gender by pre-
conception gender selection (PGS).
Gender selection through prenatal diagnosis
and abortion has existed since the 1970s. More re-
cently, preimplantation sexing of embryos for
transfer has been developed (Tarin and Handyside
1993; The Ethics Committee of the American So-
ciety of Reproductive Medicine 1999). Yet prena-
tal or preimplantation methods of gender selection
are unattractive because they require abortion or a
costly, intrusive cycle of in vitro fertilization (IVF)
and embryo discard. Attempts to separate X- and
Y-bearing sperm for preconception gender selec-
tion by sperm swim-up or swim-through tech-
niques have not shown consistent X- and Y-sperm
cell separation or success in producing offspring of
the desired gender.
The use of �ow cytometry to separate X- and Y-
bearing sperm may turn out to be a much more re-
liable method of enriching sperm populations for
insemination. Laser beams passed across a �owing
array of specially dyed sperm can separate most of
the 2.8% heavier X- from Y-bearing sperm, thus
producing an X-enriched sperm sample for insemi-
nation.2 Flow cytometry has been used successfully
in over 400 sex selections in rabbit, swine, ovine,
and bovine species, including successive genera-
tions in swine and rabbit (Fugger et al. 1998). A
human pregnancy was reported in 1995 (Levinson,
Keyvanfar, and Wu 1995).
The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), which holds a patent on the �ow cy-
tometry separation process, has licensed the Genet-
ics and IVF Institute in Fairfax, Virginia, to study
the safety and ef�cacy of the technique for medical
and “family balancing” reasons in an institutional
review boa.
Defines kinship and explains its importance. Reviews the biological and sociological constants of kinship; Previews the topicsto be covered in marriage, family and larger kinship units.
Freeman 1 Brandon Freeman Professor Lee English 10.docxshericehewat
Freeman 1
Brandon Freeman
Professor Lee
English 101
25 February 2017
Problems with Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Definition of the Family
It is not unusual for people to think of a family in its basic form as a mother and a
father and the child or children they conceive together. But a genetic connection
between parents and children is not necessary for a family to exist. New families are
often created by remarriage after a divorce or the death of a spouse, so that only one
parent is genetically related to the child or children. Also, the practice of adoption is
long-standing and creates families where neither parent is genetically related to the
child or children. There are many single-parent families in the United States, and some
of these may be families where the parents live together but are not married (Coontz
147). Couples that consist of two men or two women are also increasingly common, and
more of these couples now also have or want children (Buchanan). Although there is no
universal definition of the family, in recent years scholars have established that the
“normative” definition in most societies is “at least one parent and one child.” This
definition goes on to say that a child does not have to be genetically related to the
parent, and “children conceived through artificial insemination or a surrogate mother”
count (Munro and Munro 553). Though we may accept the idea that the definition of the
“normative” family is a broad one and that no biological relationship is needed for a
parent and child to form a family, for many people genetic heritage remains an
important factor in describing who they are and how they relate to other members of
their family. This thinking, which persists despite the broad variety of families that now
Freeman 2
exist, provokes particular conflicts for members of families that are created with the new
methods of assisted reproductive technology, methods that are new in human history,
having developed only over the past few decades.
Assisted reproductive technology (including artificial insemination and in vitro
fertilization) is often used when one member of a male-female couple is infertile; the
resulting child is usually related to at least one member of the couple.1 This technology
is also used to allow male-male and female-female couples to have children. In 2005,
52,041 children were born in the United States through assisted reproductive
technology, an increase of more than a hundred percent from 1996 (United States 61). It
can be argued that the new families formed through artificial reproductive technology
“tend to be stronger and more highly functioning than naturally conceived ones, because
the parents are so motivated to have children, and so gratified once they arrive” (Mundy
1
This paper uses the term assisted reproductive technology for both ...
0Adolescent Minorities in Foster Care Systems and thSilvaGraf83
0
Adolescent Minorities in Foster Care Systems and the Inadequate Attention They Receive from Society
Aliyah Jordan
College of Arts, Culture and Scientific Inquiry, University of West Georgia
SOCI 3001: Communicating Sociology
Angela Brodsky
April, 2021
Adoption & foster care have fought a continuous battle with providing children with proper stable homes to live in. Not accounting for the external factors (such as irresponsible guardians) there, are many internal factors that contribute to the instability of the foster care system. Researching and examining the infrastructure of the foster care system led to several discoveries about the many flaws that exist within the system. The lack of resources, quality assurance (between guardian and child) & unorganized administration, has led to numerous counts of children being lost and/or destroyed by a system “intended” to aid them. Yet, at the same time the foster care system also fails in reforming the parents (or former guardians) of the children. The judicial system ensures that many parents receive a TPR (termination of parental rights) essentially severing the relationship between parent & child, while also contributing to the psychological trauma of foster care. Nonetheless the near future of foster care seems optimistic due to the various changes in factors of the system such as, transracial adoption & LGBTQ individuals moving to adopt. To enhance and strengthen my understanding of foster care these articles were examined under a thematic approach. With the goal of identifying the consistencies of instability that chaotically hamper the foster care system.
The supposed reformations that are to be provided to parents, separated from their children, does not effectively exist within the foster care system. While on the other hand many parents fail to make the proper steps towards their own reformation, the system fails to support those afflicted by a mental illness (specifically fathers). “Issues with mental health…contribute to fathers engaging in abusive or neglectful behaviors toward children.” Accounted sources of child abuse have documented evidence of an underlying affliction (or substance abuse), that negatively impaired the judgement & actions of many fathers. It is essential for many children that their parental relationship be healthy, and fathers are the foundational step within this model. Many fathers who have lost their rights allowed their afflictions to impede their commitment to parenting overall. “Might help fathers to identify how his mental health issue affects the way he conceptualizes himself as a father.” Inversely, while identifying the source of many abuse cases, it would be also beneficial for these fathers to be given the proper supports to improve themselves and evaluate their ability & aptitude. While there are expectations of responsibility already set upon the parents, there must be greater expectations set for the foster care system.
The stand ...
0
Adolescent Minorities in Foster Care Systems and the Inadequate Attention They Receive from Society
Aliyah Jordan
College of Arts, Culture and Scientific Inquiry, University of West Georgia
SOCI 3001: Communicating Sociology
Angela Brodsky
April, 2021
Adoption & foster care have fought a continuous battle with providing children with proper stable homes to live in. Not accounting for the external factors (such as irresponsible guardians) there, are many internal factors that contribute to the instability of the foster care system. Researching and examining the infrastructure of the foster care system led to several discoveries about the many flaws that exist within the system. The lack of resources, quality assurance (between guardian and child) & unorganized administration, has led to numerous counts of children being lost and/or destroyed by a system “intended” to aid them. Yet, at the same time the foster care system also fails in reforming the parents (or former guardians) of the children. The judicial system ensures that many parents receive a TPR (termination of parental rights) essentially severing the relationship between parent & child, while also contributing to the psychological trauma of foster care. Nonetheless the near future of foster care seems optimistic due to the various changes in factors of the system such as, transracial adoption & LGBTQ individuals moving to adopt. To enhance and strengthen my understanding of foster care these articles were examined under a thematic approach. With the goal of identifying the consistencies of instability that chaotically hamper the foster care system.
The supposed reformations that are to be provided to parents, separated from their children, does not effectively exist within the foster care system. While on the other hand many parents fail to make the proper steps towards their own reformation, the system fails to support those afflicted by a mental illness (specifically fathers). “Issues with mental health…contribute to fathers engaging in abusive or neglectful behaviors toward children.” Accounted sources of child abuse have documented evidence of an underlying affliction (or substance abuse), that negatively impaired the judgement & actions of many fathers. It is essential for many children that their parental relationship be healthy, and fathers are the foundational step within this model. Many fathers who have lost their rights allowed their afflictions to impede their commitment to parenting overall. “Might help fathers to identify how his mental health issue affects the way he conceptualizes himself as a father.” Inversely, while identifying the source of many abuse cases, it would be also beneficial for these fathers to be given the proper supports to improve themselves and evaluate their ability & aptitude. While there are expectations of responsibility already set upon the parents, there must be greater expectations set for the foster care system.
The stand ...
2 ajob Winter 2001, Volume 1, Number 1 2001 by The MIT P.docxvickeryr87
2 ajob Winter 2001, Volume 1, Number 1
� 2001 by The MIT Press
Pre co ncep tio n Ge nd er S ele ctio n
Preconception Gender Selection1
John A. Robertson, School of Law, University of Texas at Austin
Safe and effective methods of preconception gender selection through �ow cytometric separation
of X- and Y-bearing sperm could greatly increase the use of gender selection by couples contem-
plating reproduction. Such a development raises ethical, legal, and social issues about the impact
of such practices on offspring, on sex ratio imbalances, and on sexism and the status of women.
This paper analyzes the competing interests in preconception gender selection, and concludes that
its use to increase gender variety in a family, and possibly for selecting the gender of �rstborn,
might in many instances be ethically acceptable.
Advances in genetics and reproductive technology
present prospective parents with an increasing
number of choices about the genetic makeup of
their children. Those choices now involve the use
of carrier and prenatal screening techniques to
avoid the birth of children with serious genetic dis-
ease, but techniques to choose nonmedical charac-
teristics will eventually be available. One
nonmedical characteristic that may soon be within
reach is the selection of offspring gender by pre-
conception gender selection (PGS).
Gender selection through prenatal diagnosis
and abortion has existed since the 1970s. More re-
cently, preimplantation sexing of embryos for
transfer has been developed (Tarin and Handyside
1993; The Ethics Committee of the American So-
ciety of Reproductive Medicine 1999). Yet prena-
tal or preimplantation methods of gender selection
are unattractive because they require abortion or a
costly, intrusive cycle of in vitro fertilization (IVF)
and embryo discard. Attempts to separate X- and
Y-bearing sperm for preconception gender selec-
tion by sperm swim-up or swim-through tech-
niques have not shown consistent X- and Y-sperm
cell separation or success in producing offspring of
the desired gender.
The use of �ow cytometry to separate X- and Y-
bearing sperm may turn out to be a much more re-
liable method of enriching sperm populations for
insemination. Laser beams passed across a �owing
array of specially dyed sperm can separate most of
the 2.8% heavier X- from Y-bearing sperm, thus
producing an X-enriched sperm sample for insemi-
nation.2 Flow cytometry has been used successfully
in over 400 sex selections in rabbit, swine, ovine,
and bovine species, including successive genera-
tions in swine and rabbit (Fugger et al. 1998). A
human pregnancy was reported in 1995 (Levinson,
Keyvanfar, and Wu 1995).
The United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), which holds a patent on the �ow cy-
tometry separation process, has licensed the Genet-
ics and IVF Institute in Fairfax, Virginia, to study
the safety and ef�cacy of the technique for medical
and “family balancing” reasons in an institutional
review boa.
The notion of interdependence and its implications for child and family polic...Ya'ir Ronen
The authors claim that the recognition of interdependence
as a guiding principle of child and family policy has the potential to
transform legal systems to make them less punitive and more constructive, less judgmental towards individuals and more empathic to the protection of relationships and self-constructed identities. By embracing the notion of interdependence, our societies can be moved toward greater recognition of our common humanity to the great benefit of children and
their families, particularly those who are most vulnerable.
Four lenses are articulated in this paper: Therapeutic jurisprudence,
preventive law, family systems theory, and culture. The paper shows
how these lenses point toward more supportive rather than punitive
types of interventions in the lives of children and their families. The paper demonstrates that, despite the fact that questionable parental behavior may initially engender feelings of anger and aversion, an empathic public response–one that recognizes the reality of the interdependence between parents and children–not only comports with current enlightened interdisciplinary approaches, but also promotes child and family well-being. The authors suggest that such a response not only be contemplated and understood, but that it should also reframe child and family policies and practices. The family group conference model represents a tool for such reframing
Virgin Fathers: Paternity Law, Assisted Reproductive Technology, and the Lega...Elizabeth Levy
Virgin Fathers: Paternity Law, Assisted Reproductive Technology, and the Legal Bias Against Gay Dads explores the legal paradigms that shape fatherhood presumptions as applied to nonheteronormative families.
In summary, first, it is evident that human reproductive capacities are experiencing displacements, delegations and transformations because of artificial reproductive technologies. Second, progress in the field of artificial reproductive technologies has been and remains rapid and diverse but infertility still is the issue in scientific research, despite the trend to displace the cave-dweller natural option for artificial reproduction and extend it to fertile single people. Third, the social impact of ART on reproduction, families and couples has to be fully grasped in contrast with the dominant order of biparental and heterosexual family to find a way to redefine the concept
From self-driving cars to an iPhone screen that unlocks when you look at it, advances in technology can happen fast and often have a big impact on peoples’ lives. Not surprisingly, the law does not always keep pace—often leaving important legal questions in the wake of fastadvancing technologies. What is to be done with cryopreserved embryos upon the dissolution of
a marriage is one such important legal question where innovation in the law has become necessary to address innovation in technology.
Same-sex Marriage Lecture 3 - In a marriage redefined country heterosexuals f...FamilyMan2
Redefining marriage brings about social change. A small part of this change is positive, but it also brings about a lot of negative social outcomes too. In this lecture, we look at how, in a marriage redefined culture, it becomes ever harder for heterosexuals to understand that marriage is primarily about giving their biological children the best possible start in life. Thus more heterosexuals won't marry in order to protect their children and more will divorce. This being so then more children will suffer and future society goes even more into decay.
Scanned by CamScannerScanned by CamScannerLEGALI.docxanhlodge
Scanned by CamScanner
Scanned by CamScanner
LEGALIZATION OF SAME SEX ADOPTION PAGE 1
LEGALIZATION OF SAME SEX ADOPTION PAGE 9
Introduction
Equality in marriage has not turned into equality in adoption for gay couples in United States. In their quest to gain this legal right the gay couple believes that they will have won the first step towards having their families being recognized by law. Adoption is a concept that has been in existence with the American society for a long time, but it is only recently that we have started to hear about the concept of gay adoption (Ritter, 2010). The society is made up of many orphaned children; they live under pathetic conditions as homeless people or in orphanages. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t people who are willing to take care of these children in a family set up, people have children of their own, and others don’t want to get children and therefore they don’t see any reason to adopt. Yet there could be a solution to this problem in the form of gay couples.
Homosexuals would have loved to have children through adoption means, yet this has been made impossible due to the fact that this is a practice that is illegal in most states in United States. It is not right for the constitution to provide these people with the right to get married and then deny them the right to access what makes a family whole; children. This is an unconstitutional right and gay parents should be allowed the right to adopt children as long as they have the capacity to take care of the children given to them by the authorities (Ritter, 2010).
Definition of Terms
Adoption; this is defined as a legal process in the law which gives rights of a parent to adoptive parents. It is all about taking a child into a family as a permanent member of that family
Same-sex adoption; this is a new concept where people of the same sex united in marriage are given the chance to exercise parental responsibilities on an adopted child
Legalization requirements; this refers to the legal merits that makes an act constitutional. There are processes that must be followed in order to make a certain act constitutional.
Same Sex Adoption
Gay parent adoption as defined above has elicited legal issues that are very complex and that involve several considerations. All over the world, there are only 14 states that have managed to allow gay couples to legally adopt. As the case is in United States, there are states that allow gay couples to adopt yet they have not been able to come up with national laws which permit the practice. There are few states in US that prohibit gay adoption while others have no straight forward laws on the issue. There are few countries such as Iceland and Finland which allows a single partner from a gay union to adopt the biological child of the other.
There are other countries in which a gay individual can petition the court to allow him/her to adopt, but they are not allowed to do so as a couple (Reed, 2013)..
Adv. biopharm. APPLICATION OF PHARMACOKINETICS : TARGETED DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMSAkankshaAshtankar
MIP 201T & MPH 202T
ADVANCED BIOPHARMACEUTICS & PHARMACOKINETICS : UNIT 5
APPLICATION OF PHARMACOKINETICS : TARGETED DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS By - AKANKSHA ASHTANKAR
- Video recording of this lecture in English language: https://youtu.be/kqbnxVAZs-0
- Video recording of this lecture in Arabic language: https://youtu.be/SINlygW1Mpc
- Link to download the book free: https://nephrotube.blogspot.com/p/nephrotube-nephrology-books.html
- Link to NephroTube website: www.NephroTube.com
- Link to NephroTube social media accounts: https://nephrotube.blogspot.com/p/join-nephrotube-on-social-media.html
Tom Selleck Health: A Comprehensive Look at the Iconic Actor’s Wellness Journeygreendigital
Tom Selleck, an enduring figure in Hollywood. has captivated audiences for decades with his rugged charm, iconic moustache. and memorable roles in television and film. From his breakout role as Thomas Magnum in Magnum P.I. to his current portrayal of Frank Reagan in Blue Bloods. Selleck's career has spanned over 50 years. But beyond his professional achievements. fans have often been curious about Tom Selleck Health. especially as he has aged in the public eye.
Follow us on: Pinterest
Introduction
Many have been interested in Tom Selleck health. not only because of his enduring presence on screen but also because of the challenges. and lifestyle choices he has faced and made over the years. This article delves into the various aspects of Tom Selleck health. exploring his fitness regimen, diet, mental health. and the challenges he has encountered as he ages. We'll look at how he maintains his well-being. the health issues he has faced, and his approach to ageing .
Early Life and Career
Childhood and Athletic Beginnings
Tom Selleck was born on January 29, 1945, in Detroit, Michigan, and grew up in Sherman Oaks, California. From an early age, he was involved in sports, particularly basketball. which played a significant role in his physical development. His athletic pursuits continued into college. where he attended the University of Southern California (USC) on a basketball scholarship. This early involvement in sports laid a strong foundation for his physical health and disciplined lifestyle.
Transition to Acting
Selleck's transition from an athlete to an actor came with its physical demands. His first significant role in "Magnum P.I." required him to perform various stunts and maintain a fit appearance. This role, which he played from 1980 to 1988. necessitated a rigorous fitness routine to meet the show's demands. setting the stage for his long-term commitment to health and wellness.
Fitness Regimen
Workout Routine
Tom Selleck health and fitness regimen has evolved. adapting to his changing roles and age. During his "Magnum, P.I." days. Selleck's workouts were intense and focused on building and maintaining muscle mass. His routine included weightlifting, cardiovascular exercises. and specific training for the stunts he performed on the show.
Selleck adjusted his fitness routine as he aged to suit his body's needs. Today, his workouts focus on maintaining flexibility, strength, and cardiovascular health. He incorporates low-impact exercises such as swimming, walking, and light weightlifting. This balanced approach helps him stay fit without putting undue strain on his joints and muscles.
Importance of Flexibility and Mobility
In recent years, Selleck has emphasized the importance of flexibility and mobility in his fitness regimen. Understanding the natural decline in muscle mass and joint flexibility with age. he includes stretching and yoga in his routine. These practices help prevent injuries, improve posture, and maintain mobilit
Recomendações da OMS sobre cuidados maternos e neonatais para uma experiência pós-natal positiva.
Em consonância com os ODS – Objetivos do Desenvolvimento Sustentável e a Estratégia Global para a Saúde das Mulheres, Crianças e Adolescentes, e aplicando uma abordagem baseada nos direitos humanos, os esforços de cuidados pós-natais devem expandir-se para além da cobertura e da simples sobrevivência, de modo a incluir cuidados de qualidade.
Estas diretrizes visam melhorar a qualidade dos cuidados pós-natais essenciais e de rotina prestados às mulheres e aos recém-nascidos, com o objetivo final de melhorar a saúde e o bem-estar materno e neonatal.
Uma “experiência pós-natal positiva” é um resultado importante para todas as mulheres que dão à luz e para os seus recém-nascidos, estabelecendo as bases para a melhoria da saúde e do bem-estar a curto e longo prazo. Uma experiência pós-natal positiva é definida como aquela em que as mulheres, pessoas que gestam, os recém-nascidos, os casais, os pais, os cuidadores e as famílias recebem informação consistente, garantia e apoio de profissionais de saúde motivados; e onde um sistema de saúde flexível e com recursos reconheça as necessidades das mulheres e dos bebês e respeite o seu contexto cultural.
Estas diretrizes consolidadas apresentam algumas recomendações novas e já bem fundamentadas sobre cuidados pós-natais de rotina para mulheres e neonatos que recebem cuidados no pós-parto em unidades de saúde ou na comunidade, independentemente dos recursos disponíveis.
É fornecido um conjunto abrangente de recomendações para cuidados durante o período puerperal, com ênfase nos cuidados essenciais que todas as mulheres e recém-nascidos devem receber, e com a devida atenção à qualidade dos cuidados; isto é, a entrega e a experiência do cuidado recebido. Estas diretrizes atualizam e ampliam as recomendações da OMS de 2014 sobre cuidados pós-natais da mãe e do recém-nascido e complementam as atuais diretrizes da OMS sobre a gestão de complicações pós-natais.
O estabelecimento da amamentação e o manejo das principais intercorrências é contemplada.
Recomendamos muito.
Vamos discutir essas recomendações no nosso curso de pós-graduação em Aleitamento no Instituto Ciclos.
Esta publicação só está disponível em inglês até o momento.
Prof. Marcus Renato de Carvalho
www.agostodourado.com
Title: Sense of Taste
Presenter: Dr. Faiza, Assistant Professor of Physiology
Qualifications:
MBBS (Best Graduate, AIMC Lahore)
FCPS Physiology
ICMT, CHPE, DHPE (STMU)
MPH (GC University, Faisalabad)
MBA (Virtual University of Pakistan)
Learning Objectives:
Describe the structure and function of taste buds.
Describe the relationship between the taste threshold and taste index of common substances.
Explain the chemical basis and signal transduction of taste perception for each type of primary taste sensation.
Recognize different abnormalities of taste perception and their causes.
Key Topics:
Significance of Taste Sensation:
Differentiation between pleasant and harmful food
Influence on behavior
Selection of food based on metabolic needs
Receptors of Taste:
Taste buds on the tongue
Influence of sense of smell, texture of food, and pain stimulation (e.g., by pepper)
Primary and Secondary Taste Sensations:
Primary taste sensations: Sweet, Sour, Salty, Bitter, Umami
Chemical basis and signal transduction mechanisms for each taste
Taste Threshold and Index:
Taste threshold values for Sweet (sucrose), Salty (NaCl), Sour (HCl), and Bitter (Quinine)
Taste index relationship: Inversely proportional to taste threshold
Taste Blindness:
Inability to taste certain substances, particularly thiourea compounds
Example: Phenylthiocarbamide
Structure and Function of Taste Buds:
Composition: Epithelial cells, Sustentacular/Supporting cells, Taste cells, Basal cells
Features: Taste pores, Taste hairs/microvilli, and Taste nerve fibers
Location of Taste Buds:
Found in papillae of the tongue (Fungiform, Circumvallate, Foliate)
Also present on the palate, tonsillar pillars, epiglottis, and proximal esophagus
Mechanism of Taste Stimulation:
Interaction of taste substances with receptors on microvilli
Signal transduction pathways for Umami, Sweet, Bitter, Sour, and Salty tastes
Taste Sensitivity and Adaptation:
Decrease in sensitivity with age
Rapid adaptation of taste sensation
Role of Saliva in Taste:
Dissolution of tastants to reach receptors
Washing away the stimulus
Taste Preferences and Aversions:
Mechanisms behind taste preference and aversion
Influence of receptors and neural pathways
Impact of Sensory Nerve Damage:
Degeneration of taste buds if the sensory nerve fiber is cut
Abnormalities of Taste Detection:
Conditions: Ageusia, Hypogeusia, Dysgeusia (parageusia)
Causes: Nerve damage, neurological disorders, infections, poor oral hygiene, adverse drug effects, deficiencies, aging, tobacco use, altered neurotransmitter levels
Neurotransmitters and Taste Threshold:
Effects of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) on taste sensitivity
Supertasters:
25% of the population with heightened sensitivity to taste, especially bitterness
Increased number of fungiform papillae
Integrating Ayurveda into Parkinson’s Management: A Holistic ApproachAyurveda ForAll
Explore the benefits of combining Ayurveda with conventional Parkinson's treatments. Learn how a holistic approach can manage symptoms, enhance well-being, and balance body energies. Discover the steps to safely integrate Ayurvedic practices into your Parkinson’s care plan, including expert guidance on diet, herbal remedies, and lifestyle modifications.
Basavarajeeyam is an important text for ayurvedic physician belonging to andhra pradehs. It is a popular compendium in various parts of our country as well as in andhra pradesh. The content of the text was presented in sanskrit and telugu language (Bilingual). One of the most famous book in ayurvedic pharmaceutics and therapeutics. This book contains 25 chapters called as prakaranas. Many rasaoushadis were explained, pioneer of dhatu druti, nadi pareeksha, mutra pareeksha etc. Belongs to the period of 15-16 century. New diseases like upadamsha, phiranga rogas are explained.
Muktapishti is a traditional Ayurvedic preparation made from Shoditha Mukta (Purified Pearl), is believed to help regulate thyroid function and reduce symptoms of hyperthyroidism due to its cooling and balancing properties. Clinical evidence on its efficacy remains limited, necessitating further research to validate its therapeutic benefits.
Title: Sense of Smell
Presenter: Dr. Faiza, Assistant Professor of Physiology
Qualifications:
MBBS (Best Graduate, AIMC Lahore)
FCPS Physiology
ICMT, CHPE, DHPE (STMU)
MPH (GC University, Faisalabad)
MBA (Virtual University of Pakistan)
Learning Objectives:
Describe the primary categories of smells and the concept of odor blindness.
Explain the structure and location of the olfactory membrane and mucosa, including the types and roles of cells involved in olfaction.
Describe the pathway and mechanisms of olfactory signal transmission from the olfactory receptors to the brain.
Illustrate the biochemical cascade triggered by odorant binding to olfactory receptors, including the role of G-proteins and second messengers in generating an action potential.
Identify different types of olfactory disorders such as anosmia, hyposmia, hyperosmia, and dysosmia, including their potential causes.
Key Topics:
Olfactory Genes:
3% of the human genome accounts for olfactory genes.
400 genes for odorant receptors.
Olfactory Membrane:
Located in the superior part of the nasal cavity.
Medially: Folds downward along the superior septum.
Laterally: Folds over the superior turbinate and upper surface of the middle turbinate.
Total surface area: 5-10 square centimeters.
Olfactory Mucosa:
Olfactory Cells: Bipolar nerve cells derived from the CNS (100 million), with 4-25 olfactory cilia per cell.
Sustentacular Cells: Produce mucus and maintain ionic and molecular environment.
Basal Cells: Replace worn-out olfactory cells with an average lifespan of 1-2 months.
Bowman’s Gland: Secretes mucus.
Stimulation of Olfactory Cells:
Odorant dissolves in mucus and attaches to receptors on olfactory cilia.
Involves a cascade effect through G-proteins and second messengers, leading to depolarization and action potential generation in the olfactory nerve.
Quality of a Good Odorant:
Small (3-20 Carbon atoms), volatile, water-soluble, and lipid-soluble.
Facilitated by odorant-binding proteins in mucus.
Membrane Potential and Action Potential:
Resting membrane potential: -55mV.
Action potential frequency in the olfactory nerve increases with odorant strength.
Adaptation Towards the Sense of Smell:
Rapid adaptation within the first second, with further slow adaptation.
Psychological adaptation greater than receptor adaptation, involving feedback inhibition from the central nervous system.
Primary Sensations of Smell:
Camphoraceous, Musky, Floral, Pepperminty, Ethereal, Pungent, Putrid.
Odor Detection Threshold:
Examples: Hydrogen sulfide (0.0005 ppm), Methyl-mercaptan (0.002 ppm).
Some toxic substances are odorless at lethal concentrations.
Characteristics of Smell:
Odor blindness for single substances due to lack of appropriate receptor protein.
Behavioral and emotional influences of smell.
Transmission of Olfactory Signals:
From olfactory cells to glomeruli in the olfactory bulb, involving lateral inhibition.
Primitive, less old, and new olfactory systems with different path
2. 22 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
Assumptions that sex and reproduction are necessarily linked and
normatively confined to marriage are challenged by the use of Assisted
Reproductive Technology (ART), as are conventional definitions of fa-
ther, mother, and family. ART provides an option for individuals and
couples unable or unwilling to procreate due to infertility, illness, inher-
itable traits, sexual orientation, or lack of partner. But in doing so, it in-
volves novel and complex forms of participation in the reproductive
process. Reproduction through ART does not require sexual inter-
course, and indeed, frequently depends on the involvement of individu-
als not bound by erotic and/or marital ties.
The potential for confusion about who will have rights and responsi-
bilities for children conceived through ART is significant as they may
have more than two parents. Assignment of parentage becomes particu-
larly problematical when parenting agents disagree with one another
about the roles they should assume in children’s lives. Cultural norms
have yet to evolve which would provide clear guidelines against which
to settle such disputes. Additionally, involvement with ART entails a
significant emotional component that often includes grief, anger, or
guilt. This lack of clarity, within the context of strong emotional re-
sponse, suggests that clinical practitioners should play an integral role
in these arrangements, providing preparatory counseling to identify is-
sues to be considered by clients in the decision-making process, sup-
portive counseling through the process of ART, and mediating conflicts
that might arise. This article should facilitate their participation by high-
lighting the axes around which disputes commonly occur and by identi-
fying legal trends in designation of parentage.
The state defines family relationships through marriage, parent and
child, adoption, and divorce laws. Traditionally, many of these laws
were based on British statute and case law–both requiring heterosexual-
ity and monogamy. Maternity was never at question: a woman who
gave birth to a child was legally defined as the natural mother. Paternity
was a function of the man’s relationship to the mother, with her husband
presumed to be the natural father. Children born to single women were
considered illegitimate, having no father, and thus having no family.
The law in responding to ART may legitimate emergent usage, pro-
hibit usage altogether, or restrict usage to only those procedures or peo-
ple consistent with traditional definitions of parent. Thus, it may serve
an important “channeling function” by shaping subsequent social be-
havior relative to this technology (Young, 1998). Family law predomi-
nantly consists of state statutes and court cases. As reproductive
technologies were developed and diffused, some state legislatures re-
3. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 23
sponded through statutes that legitimated or prohibited usage. Statutes
stipulated the conditions required for legitimation, and the rights and re-
sponsibilities of individuals involved in the process. State judicial sys-
tems follow a pattern of increasing influence from lower courts through
appellate courts up to the state supreme court. Such courts interpret state
laws through adjudication of cases involving ART. While lower courts
may provide direction for subsequent cases, their decisions do not set
precedent. For this reason, only cases adjudicated at the appellate level
or higher are examined in this article. These cases most often involve
challenges to existing laws, challenges to the application of existing
laws, or requests for clarification of relations in the absence of laws spe-
cifically dealing with ART. This combination of state statutes and court
cases comprise the body of legal authority defining relationships for
those employing these technologies.
In this article, we specifically assess the following questions: To
what extent, and in what ways, have the various forms of ART been
granted legitimacy? As parenting roles have become segmented with
employment of this technology, which roles have been afforded greater
legitimacy? Have alternative families created through ART received
less than equal protection under the law; i.e., have certain types of peo-
ple been legally discouraged from using ART? Finally, given the cur-
rent legal response to ART, what roles are suggested for clinical
practitioners in ART arrangements?
ART AND THE DIVISION OF REPRODUCTIVE LABOR
The most common form of ART employed in practice is artificial in-
semination (AI). In simplest application, it entails the mechanical insertion
of semen into the vagina or uterus of the prospective mother. Although em-
ployed when either the man’s or the woman’s capacity to reproduce is
problematical, AI is primarily used for male infertility and single and les-
bian women, and typically involves the impregnation of the woman by us-
ing donor semen (commonly referred to as “artificial insemination by
donor” or AID).1
AI is also integral to traditional surrogacy arrangements, wherein a
woman agrees to be artificially inseminated with the semen of a man to
whom she is not married. She gestates the fetus, but then returns the
baby at birth to the biological father and his wife.2
A second medical procedure, in vitro fertilization (IVF), was origi-
nally developed for female infertility caused by blocked or missing fal-
4. 24 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
lopian tubes. While typically used in nonsurrogacy situations,3 IVF
makes an additional surrogacy form possible. In gestational surrogacy,4
the intended mother and the genetic mother are one in the same, but another
woman gestates and bears the baby. Specifically, ova are removed from the
genetic/intended mother and fertilized in vitro with sperm from either the
husband or, less commonly, from a donor. Fertilized eggs are then im-
planted in the surrogate, who gestates the fetus to term. IVF may also be
used for oocyte or embryo donation, wherein the intended mother assumes
a gestational role in the reproductive process. Another woman donates her
ova, which are then fertilized in vitro, and implanted in the gestational/in-
tended mother, or an embryo may be donated and implanted in the gesta-
tional/intended mother.5
In the near future, other technologies will likely be developed and
employed, either with or without legal support. Of course, cloning, the
ultimate ART procedure, has achieved limited success in application to
non-human species, but may soon be preemptively prohibited in the
U.S. with regard to its use among human subjects. Comparatively un-
known is an IVF form, referred to as “trigametic” IVF, that would em-
ploy sperm whose original genetic material had been replaced by that
from another person. If perfected, this technology should find signifi-
cant popularity among lesbian couples who wish to conceive and bear
genetically-related offspring (Velte, 1999).
Definitions of parent can be incredibly complex with ART. In defin-
ing the permutations implicit with this technology, Eichler (1996) notes
that while three types of father roles are possible (a genetic/social one, an
exclusively genetic one, and an exclusively social one), mother roles in-
clude at least seven (a genetic/gestational/social one, a genetic/gestational
but not social one, a social but not genetic/gestational one, a genetic but not
gestational/social one, a gestational/social but not genetic one, a genetic/so-
cial but not gestational one, and a gestational but not genetic/social).
Relative to AID, two fathering roles are possible: the genetic father
and the social (or intended) father. Although involvement of an in-
tended father has been the conventional practice, it is important to note
that his presence is increasingly being deemed unnecessary by single
women wishing to bear and raise children alone, and by those having a
committed relationship with a female partner who also intends to par-
ent. Surrogacy arrangements and oocyte donation entail two women
playing a combination of three roles: genetic mother, gestational
mother, and social (intended) mother. In traditional surrogacy, the roles
of genetic mother and gestational mother are joined in the surrogate,
who is expected to deliver her offspring to an intended mother, having
5. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 25
no biological relationship with the baby. For purposes of gestational
surrogacy and oocyte donation, the intended mother is actively involved
in the biology of reproduction by playing the role of genetic mother, in
the former, and gestational mother, in the latter.
In surrogacy arrangements, the intended mother generally is married
to the baby’s genetic father, and hence the child has three parents. But,
should donor semen be used, the child would have four parents. It is
possible, moreover, that the three mothering roles could each be per-
formed by different women, and through the use of donor semen, donor
ova, and surrogate gestation, a child would have five parents. Of course,
arrangements where neither intended parent is genetically related to the
child should be rare, since establishing this genetic link is the essential
reason that intended parents turn to ART. Unless in a nonadoptive sta-
tus, they would likely select the simpler alternative of adoption.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Crticisms of ART
Early writings on ART were largely polemical and centered on the
status and potential of the technology (Curie-Cohen, Lutrell, & Shapiro,
1978; Edwards & Steptoe, 1980; Keller, 1971), the ethics of its usage
(Baruch, D’Adamo, & Seager, 1988; Capron, 1984; Walters, 1983), its
possible impact on the status of women (Arditti, Klein, & Minden,
1989; Corea, 1985; Firestone, 1970; Spallone & Steinberg, 1987) and
its potential impact on the development of parent-child relationships
(Rothman, 1989). For example, one of the first statements (Ogburn &
Nimkoff, 1955) argued that AI might undermine family functioning.
And while Firestone (1970) saw surrogacy as a liberating vehicle–one
freeing mothers from the burden of childbearing, Rothman (1989) chal-
lenged the wisdom of this technology, proposing that the essential
bonding process between mother and child begins in gestation.
Feminist scholars, such as Rothman, have tended to be pessimistic
about ART, especially with regard to the issue of control. Zipper and
Sevenhuijsen (1987) noted that medical technocrats, rather than those
who would use ART, have determined which technologies will be de-
veloped and to whom will go access. Moreover, in criticizing the prac-
tice of using IVF for male infertility, Lorber added that participating
mothers are exploited by a patriarchal system in which they are “. . . try-
ing to maintain a relationship and have a child within the constraints of
6. 26 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
monogamy, the nuclear family structure, and the valorization of biolog-
ical parenthood, especially for men” (Lorber, 1992, p. 177). Feminists
likewise have been disturbed about the potential of surrogacy to exploit
poor women who could be used as “breeders” by affluent couples (An-
drews, 1984).
While early scholars thus tended to be negative about the adoption of
ART, more recent research has begun to address two other, more empir-
ically-based concerns: the social context of ART, and the law and ART.
Studies examining the former, primarily the motives, roles, and rela-
tionships among parties employing these technologies (Golombok,
Cook, Bish, & Murray, 1995; Lasker & Borg, 1994; Ragone, 1994), are
instructive, but more basic to our purpose are those having a legal focus.
ART and the Law
Notwithstanding criticisms about the social practice of ART, re-
search pertinent to law generally has been critical of the failure of courts
and legislatures to legitimate both ART and non-traditional parenting
agents. For example, Blankenship, Rushing, Onorato, and White (1993)
found early court decisions favored father interests at the expense of
mothers, gave greater weight to the biological contributions of fathers,
and promoted the nuclear family over alternative structures. Such out-
comes, according to the authors, ignored social conditions affecting
women’s reproductive decisions and reflected bias in behalf of tradi-
tional gender roles. Surveying statutes and cases relevant to AID, Henry
(1993) likewise discerned that the state did not protect the interests of
women, particularly the unmarried, and proposed a paradigm for estab-
lishing rights and responsibilities based on the intentions of the parties
involved. Finally, Robinson (1993) examining early state statutes and
court cases concerning surrogacy, found that gestation and childbearing
remained the dominant components in the legal definition of mother.
However, she also discovered that increasing recognition had been ex-
tended to genetic and non-biological considerations, including inten-
tional behaviors and nurturance.
Robertson (1994) argued that rights to privacy in reproductive deci-
sions established in Supreme Court decisions since Skinner v. Oklahoma
(1942) should be extended to decisions to use ART. Such legitimation im-
portantly would allow regulation to insure informed consent, counseling,
record keeping, and legal rules to establish rights and responsibilities.6
Robertson also called for the inclusion of various professional experts in
7. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 27
ART arrangements, especially clinical practitioners, in order to avoid
exploitive or conflicting relationships. ART functioning in this manner, he
proposed, should have minimal adverse effects on social roles or family re-
lations.
More recent studies remain critical of the law’s continuing bias in be-
half of the traditional family (i.e., two-parent, heterosexual). Dolgin
(1996) proposed that cases involving reproductive technology highlight
the inconsistency between the traditional ideal and actual variability in
family behavior. Although long-based on hierarchy and ascription,
American law in general has evolved increasingly toward individual-
ism, contracts between legal equals, and relationships based on choice.
Family law in certain respects (e.g., contraception, abortion, and di-
vorce) has also changed. However, it has failed to do so in terms of par-
ent/child relationships; in particular, the best interests principle persists
as a key standard in court decisions. According to Dolgin, this principle
often serves the objectives of adults regardless of the real interests of
children. By being vague, it allows courts to anchor decisions about
ART–reproduced children in the ideology of the traditional family de-
spite the increasingly contractual nature of the modern family. For exam-
ple, in Baby M, the decision to grant visitation to the genetic-gestational
agent, Mary Beth Whitehead, was presumably based on the best interests
of the child, but in reality gave preference to the rights of the birth
mother (i.e., the surrogate) to be defined as the legal mother. Baby M
was consequently caught in a conflicted relationship between two ge-
netic parents who had never married nor lived together.
Similarly, Young (1998) and Storrow (2002) have concluded that
ART statutory and case law overly restrict the definition of the family
and do not reflect the realities of contemporary family life. Young
(1998) argued that such laws are consistent with the traditional concep-
tion of the nuclear family as an “exclusive” unit. Specifically, ART laws
have functioned to exclude various important others involved in the
ART process, such as surrogates and gamete donors (either male or fe-
male), who might later play critical non-custodial roles in the child’s
life. Providing a demonstration of how ART might lead to the legitima-
tion of non-traditional families, Storrow (2002) likewise recommended
that the concept of “functional parent” should include those who play
parent roles after the birth of a child, although without legal parental sta-
tus, as well as those who declare their intention to parent prior to the
birth of the child.
8. 28 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
Present Research: Objectives and Procedures
In this paper, we extend Robinson’s research (1993) by assessing the
legal response to AID, and as well, by examining additional surrogacy
statutes and court decisions made since the early 1990s. We exclude
statutes and court cases involving the use of IVF by married couples in
which donor sperm or ova are not used, as this type of ART is not prob-
lematic in defining parentage. Cases that dealt with either artificial in-
semination or surrogate motherhood were identified by a Westlaw and
LEXIS computer search of all cases listed prior to 2001. They were then
categorized by specific type of ART involved, by type of litigation, and
by issues related to the use of ART. We then conducted a search of cur-
rent state code books, identifying statutes which either dealt with artifi-
cial insemination or surrogate motherhood. Statutes were categorized
by state, type of ART, and designations of relationships. We conclude
with a discussion of the roles for clinical practitioners suggested by pre-
vious research and our findings on the legal response to ART.
FINDINGS
Artificial Insemination by Donor
State Statutes. Any discussion of ART and legal definitions of parentage
must recognize the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) authored by the Na-
tional Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (1973,
2000).7 The UPA does not define parentage in a legally binding sense, but
rather provides a model for the development of relevant state laws, and in
so doing, promotes legal consistency across state jurisdictions. Article 7
deals with AID, as well as in vitro fertilization, and declares that the inten-
tion to parent should be the determining criterion. The proposed act re-
lieves all donors, whether of sperm or egg, of parental rights and
responsibilities, and the 2000 version specifically states that a sperm donor
is relieved of such even if the woman is unmarried.
Thirty-five states have enacted statutes relevant to AID, and all of
these bear on definitions of paternity.8 In the balance of states, the courts
typically use statutes pertaining to presumptions of paternity when the
rights and responsibilities toward the child are in question. No states ex-
plicitly ban AID.
AID statutes serve to legally recognize and define the involvement of
various parties in the process. Eighteen states only sanction AID for
9. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 29
married couples.9 The language of statutes in fourteen states mentions the
mother only as “a wife” or “a married woman.” Others refer to “a mother
and her husband.” Most of these statutes require the written or oral consent
of the non-donor husband upon the initiation of the AID process. They also
stipulate that the husband is to be considered the natural father, preventing
either him or his wife from rebutting his paternity. For example, Louisi-
ana’s statute declares that the husband cannot disavow paternity of a child
born as a result of AID of the mother to which he consented. Most states,
many following the UPA, moreover specify that the semen donor is not to
be considered the child’s natural father–thus effectively precluding the do-
nor or other parties from claiming that the donor has either rights or respon-
sibilities toward the child. Many state statutes also require that the AID
procedure be performed or supervised by a licensed physician. If not per-
formed by one, then the semen donor may be considered the father of the
child by the courts.
Conversely, legitimation of AID among unmarried women, and in
practical regard, protection against paternity claims by donors or by
mothers against donors, tends to be ambiguous.10 Only Ohio explicitly
refers to the mother as either “married or unmarried,” and holds that the do-
nor is not to be considered the legal father. A few states (New Hampshire,
New Jersey, New Mexico, and Washington) relieve the donor of responsi-
bility unless he and the mother have agreed in writing that he is to be the fa-
ther. It should be noted also that some states do not expressly relieve the
donor of rights or responsibilities regardless of whether or not the mother is
married.
Court Cases. In cases involving heterosexual married couples and chil-
dren conceived by AID, the courts typically declare the husband to be the
legal father. Divorce rulings have usually required payment of child sup-
port by the father and have allowed visitation rights.11 Court decisions in
most cases have been based on presumptions of paternity established by
the husband’s consent forming a contract to support the child, whether
written (People v. Sorensen, 1968), written but not filed (Lane v. Lane,
1996), or oral (Gillem v. Gillem, 1997; Jackson v. Jackson, 2000; R.S. v.
R.S., 1983). Mothers of AID children have been prevented from filing pa-
ternity actions against the sperm donor following divorce also based on pa-
ternity assumption (J.P.C. v. O.C.B., 2000). Even when the child was
conceived after separation, but before divorce, and consent is unclear
(Young v. Remy, 1996, review denied by In re Marriage of Young, 1997),
the husband has been required to pay child support. Exceptions to these
findings include: Anonymous v. Anonymous (1989) in which the divorcing
husband was allowed to contest paternity, Welborn v. Doe (1990), in which
10. 30 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
the court recommended the intended father adopt the child as the state stat-
ute did not explicitly relieve the donor of his parental rights, and Krambule
v. Krambule (1999), in which the husband was not required to pay child
support as he had withdrawn AID consent.
When a couple did not marry but cohabited (Paraskevas v. Tunic,
1997), the social father, in the absence of contract, was granted non-parent
standing and allowed to petition for visitation rights. When a social father
and his cohabitating partner signed an agreement, (Dunkim v. Boskey,
2000), the court recognized the social father as the legal father.
In the absence of legislation dealing with the use of AID by single
women, courts have relied on intentions of parties and subsequent be-
haviors. Cases often have involved attempts by semen donors, who
knew mothers, to have paternity legitimated. In one early case (M. v. C.,
1977) where intentions were unclear, the appellate court upheld visitation
rights granted to the donor, declaring him to be the natural father. The
court, which also required that he pay child support, based the decision on
the best interests of the child–in this case defined as the child having two
parents. The Colorado Supreme Court, in what appeared to be a single
woman situation in In Interest of R.C. (1989),12 agreed with the decision in
Jhordan C. v. Mary K., (1986),13 that held that a single woman did not lose
the protection of AID statutes preventing semen donors from establishing
paternity when the donor was known. Rather, such protection was only lost
when agreement and subsequent behavior indicated that the donor was
treated and/or allowed to act as the father of the child. This rationale was re-
stated in Thomas S. v. Robin Y. (1994, “reconsidered” in Thomas S. v.
Robin Y., 1995a, and “appeal dismissed without opinion” in Thomas S. v.
Robin Y.,1995b). This case, by the way, has been depicted as a particularly
instructive lesson for lesbian couples: i.e., for those wishing to avoid
third-party intrusion, only semen from donors who are anonymous should
be employed (Young, 1998; Velte, 1998). Exceptions to donors receiving
rights include Leckie v. Voorhies (1994), where the donor was prevented
from entering an order of filiation–but again this decision was based on the
original intentions of the parties, and L.A.L. v. D.A.L. (1998, “rev’d and re-
manded, Lamaritata v. Lucas, 2002).14
The courts have been far less willing to extend parental rights to the
former female partners of mothers using AID. For example, Curiale v.
Reagan (1990) involved a motion of de facto parentage and visitation
rights by the female ex-partner of the mother of a child conceived by AID
during their relationship. The plaintiff had provided sole support for the
mother and child. Although both signed a joint custody agreement, the
mother changed her mind and refused to share custody. The lower court
11. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 31
dismissed the motion based on a lack of standing under California statutes,
and the appellate court affirmed. Parental and/or visitation rights also have
been denied due to lack of standing (West v. Superior Court, 1997; White v.
Thompson (In re Thompson), 1999), no cause for action (Music v.
Rachford,1995), and the best interests of the child (Guardianship of
Z.C.W., 1999, cert. denied, Sub nominee at Crandall v. Wagner, 1999; S.F.
v. M.D, 2000).
In other cases, partners who had not formally established relation-
ships were allowed to petition for custody and/or visitation rights. In
Holtzman v. Knott (1995), a woman brought suit pertaining to the custody
of her ex-partner’s AID-conceived five-year-old whom she had supported
and helped raise since birth. The appellate court denied the petitioner cus-
tody, although it did direct the lower court to consider visitation based on
the child’s best interests.15 Similarly in T.B. v. L.R.M. (2000, aff’d T.B. v.
L.R.M., 2001), the appellate court ruled the partner had standing and re-
manded to a lower court determination of custody and visitation based on
the best interests of child (see also Barnae v. Barnae, 1997). And in E.N.O.
v. L.M.M. (1999, cert. denied L.M.M. v. E.N.O., 1999), the appellate court
affirmed a lower court’s decision for temporary visitation pending trial on
the merits of a co-parenting agreement in determining joint custody and
visitation rights. A motion to dismiss an ex-partner’s petition for visitation
rights was denied in one case (J.C. v. C.T, 2000), and the petition was al-
lowed to proceed to be decided on the establishment of a parent/child rela-
tionship. And finally the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed an appellate
and lower court decision that an ex-partner lacked standing to sue for cus-
tody, but ruled that after four years of litigation, it was not in the best inter-
ests of the child to allow the ex-partner a decision-making role in the
child’s life. However, a decision to grant visitation rights was affirmed
(V.C. v. M.J.B., 2000, cert. denied M.J.B. v. V.C., 2000).
While ex-partners have thus not generally fared well in obtaining pa-
rental legitimacy following termination of lesbian relationships, those
who have been able to adopt may be able to retain at least a semblance
of ties with their partner’s offspring. When lesbians have established a
parent/child relationship through adoption, for example, they have been
allowed to sue for visitation rights (Lisa Laspina-Williams v. Cheryl
Laspina-Williams, 1999).
Lesbian adoption is clearly problematical, however. In many states,
same-sex partners are deemed morally unfit to adopt, particularly where
homosexual behavior is defined as criminal. Moreover, adoption by ei-
ther gays or lesbians is prohibited in several states outright by statute or
by the requirement that only the legally married can adopt partner’s
12. 32 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
children (Skinner & Kohler, 2002). Court cases decided against lesbi-
ans, reflecting the interpretation that second-parent adoptions should
only be limited to heterosexual couples, include In re C.C.G. (2000, va-
cated by, remanded by, sub nominee, In re Adoption of R.B.F., 2002), In re
Adoption of Baby Z. (1999), and In re Ray. (2001, aff’d in part and rev’d in
part, cause remanded, sub nominee In re Bonfield, 2002).
Nonetheless, several recent cases suggest emerging support for les-
bian adoptions. In Matter of Adoption of Caitlin (1994) was brought by
two different lesbian couples, whose cases were combined given their sim-
ilarity. Each petitioned for the adoption of two children. The partners were
granted adoption of the children, three conceived via AID, based on the
best interests principle. Likewise, in In re K.M. (1995), the court reversed a
lower court’s refusal to rule on the adoption of a child conceived through
AID (donor anonymous). The appellate court found that the female part-
ners did have standing, and remanded the petition to the lower court to de-
termine if adoption was in the child’s best interests.16 Similarly, the
Massachusetts Appellate Court remanded a lower court denial of waiver of
home assessment for adoption back to the lower court for a decision, stat-
ing that the denial of the petition by two women in a committed relation-
ship must be justified by factors other than a same-sex relationship
(Adoption of Galen, 1997). Finally, state legislatures may be moving to-
ward greater acceptance of such practices as indicated by recent affirma-
tions in Vermont and Connecticut that same-sex couples have an explicit
right to adopt (Skinner & Kohler, 2002).
Surrogate Motherhood
State Statutes. Fifteen states have statutes relevant to surrogate mother-
hood.17 Nine states both prohibit commercial surrogacy and fail to legiti-
mate noncommercial surrogacy.18 When parentage is designated in these
statutes, it is based on traditional presumptions of maternity, paternity, and
legitimacy (i.e., the surrogate becomes the legal mother and her husband
the presumed father (e.g., Arizona and Utah)) or on genetics, and call for
relationships to be adjudicated in custody suits according to the best inter-
ests of the child (e.g., Indiana, Michigan, and Utah). A tenth state, North
Dakota, prohibits traditional surrogacy arrangements, but exempts gesta-
tional surrogacy from the prohibition and declares the genetic mother to be
the legal mother.
Noncommercial surrogacy is explicitly legitimate in only five states:
Arkansas, Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Virginia. All consider
the intentions of the contracting parties in defining parent/child rela-
13. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 33
tionships, and two states (Florida and New Hampshire) allow the surro-
gate to change her mind after the birth of the baby with some limitations.
It is important to note that Nevada legitimates only gestational surro-
gacy, and that this arrangement is only available to married couples.
The intended mother is declared the legal mother in Arkansas, Nevada,
New Hampshire, and Virginia. Statutes in one state, Florida, distinguish
between gestational and traditional surrogacy, specifying that the birth
mother is to be considered the legal mother in traditional surrogacy, and
the intended mother is to be considered the legal mother in gestational
surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy is banned in every state having surro-
gacy statutes, except Arkansas, which does not statutorily deal with
compensation issues.19 Arkansas is also the only state that allows surro-
gacy by single parents.20
Court Cases. Surrogacy arrangements made in the forty-five states that
fail to legitimate its non-commercial use function within a legal void. In
these states, courts have turned to extant statutes concerning artificial in-
semination, adoption, parent/child relationships, and contracts to decide le-
gal issues. Although most of these states have laws against financial
compensation for adoption, such laws are inconsistently applied to surro-
gacy.21
In traditional surrogacy arrangements, the contracting male (the ge-
netic/intended father) may establish his paternity by rebutting the pater-
nity of the surrogate’s husband or entering an order of filiation. On
behalf of both the surrogate and the biological father, the Michigan Su-
preme Court in Syrkowski v. Appleyard (1985) allowed the rebuttal of pa-
ternity of the surrogate’s husband and remanded the case to the lower court
to act on the order, holding that state artificial insemination statutes re-
quired husband consent (which the surrogate’s husband had not given) (see
also Turchyn v. Cornelius, 1999, on rebuttal of paternity in an informal sur-
rogacy agreement). However, the New York family court in Anonymous v.
Anonymous (1991) dismissed an order of filiation filed by the genetic fa-
ther, and supported by the surrogate’s husband, refusing to deny the pre-
sumption of paternity.
Regardless of who has been deemed the legal father, the surrogate
mother has been defined as the legal mother in traditional surrogacy
cases. She must therefore relinquish her parental rights if the intended
mother is to adopt the child. Sometimes this process is accomplished
without dispute, as in In re Baby Girl L.J. (1986) and In re Adoption of
Baby A (1994). The intended mother may attempt to adopt in another state
if her residential state prohibits surrogacy (In re Adoption of Samant,
1998). Even if the intended mother has not filed for adoption, she has been
14. 34 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
allowed to petition for custody in a divorce case as an interested third party
(Doe v. Doe, 1998, overruled in part by In re Joshua S., 2002).
Should the surrogate not relinquish parental rights, the biological fa-
ther (i.e., genetic and intended father) generally has been allowed to
fight for custody of the child, with the decision being ultimately based
on the best interests of the child. The Supreme Court of New Jersey in
the notorious In re Baby M. (1988, superseded by statute as stated in In re
Adoption of Children by G.P.B., 1999) granted sole custody of the baby to
the biological father, William Stern, although the surrogate, Mary Beth
Whitehead, retained her status as legal mother and was awarded visitation
rights. Stern had sought enforcement of the surrogacy contract so that his
wife could adopt the baby. However, the court ruled that Whitehead’s pa-
rental rights could not be terminated without her being declared an unfit
mother (see also R.R. v. M.H., 1998, on enforcement of contract, In Re Si-
mon A.W., 1997, and Doe v. Roe, 1998, on court jurisdiction).
Another notable case, In re Marriage of Moschetta (1994), involved a
three-way dispute over parental rights, maternity, and custody between the
surrogate, the biological father, and his wife, the intended mother. The sur-
rogate claimed she had allowed the Moshettas to take the newborn home,
but did not give consent for adoption because they were having marital
problems during the pregnancy. Mrs. Moschetta sought to establish mater-
nity after her husband had separated from her and had taken the baby. The
lower court ruled that Mrs. Moschetta was not the legal mother and
awarded custody to her husband and the surrogate. Mr. Moschetta then un-
successfully challenged the surrogate as legal mother by seeking to have
the contract enforced. The appellate court affirmed the maternity of the sur-
rogate and remanded the case to a lower court to determine if custody
should reside with only the father, with visitation for the surrogate, based
on the best interests principle. In another case involving a custody dispute
between the biological father and his wife who had adopted the child
(Brasfield v. Brasfield,1996), the appellate court upheld a lower court’s de-
cision to award custody to the adoptive mother.
Once the surrogate has given consent to the adoption, it is difficult for
her to withdraw that consent. A single surrogate in Adoption of Matthew
B. (1991, cert. denied Nancy B. v. Charlotte M., 1992), although consid-
ered the natural mother, failed in her attempt to withdraw her consent to
adopt and to vacate a judgment of paternity. As in the Baby M case, the
court found that the child’s interests were best served by remaining with the
biological father and his wife. However, surrogates may retain certain
rights. In Baby M, the surrogate was deemed the legal mother and awarded
visitation, and in another case (Huddleston v. Infertility Center of America,
15. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 35
Inc., 1997), a surrogate whose baby was adopted and later killed by the sin-
gle father was allowed to sue the surrogacy agency, in her capacity as
administratrix of the child’s estate, for negligence in failing to adequately
screen participants.
Finally, a few cases have been adjudicated involving more complex
surrogacy arrangements wherein the female reproductive role was di-
vided between genetic contribution and gestation. The appellate court
declined to issue a report in Smith v. Brown (1999) on a gestational surro-
gacy arrangement due to a lack of complaint. In this case, there was no dis-
pute over maternity as the surrogate was the genetic/intended mother’s
sister. The genetic/intended parents sought to have their paternity and ma-
ternity declared prior to the birth. The lower court entered a judgment on
their behalf, requesting a review by the appellate court that was declined.
Anna J. v. Mark C. (1991) centered on a gestational surrogacy, and re-
quired the court to grant parental status and custody to either the gestational
mother or the genetic/intended mother. Mark and Crispina Calvert, unable
to have a child because she had had a partial hysterectomy, hired an unmar-
ried woman, Anna Johnson, to gestate an embryo conceived in vitro with
Mark’s semen and Crispina’s ovum. The relationship between the Calverts
and Johnson deteriorated during her pregnancy, and they brought suit
against each other. The California Supreme Court ultimately declared that
the genetic mother (Crispina) was the legal mother. They did not reach this
decision, however, by finding that the genetic mother has priority over the
gestating mother as had the appellate court. Holding that both mothering
forms had equal standing, they instead based their decision on what they
determined to be the original intentions of the parties.
Although the above decision did not indicate a preference for the ge-
netic/intended mother in gestational surrogacy arrangements, a subse-
quent case is suggestive of this outcome. In Belsito v. Clark (1994) the
court granted the petition of the genetic parents, uncontested by the gesta-
tional mother, to be declared the legal parents of the child. The birth certifi-
cate had listed the surrogate as the mother and the child as illegitimate, but
the court declared the maternal and paternal presumption as “. . . subordi-
nate and secondary to genetics” (p. 767), and that the genetic parents were
the child’s natural parents. While this decision was made beneath the ap-
pellate level and thus does not set precedent, it may serve to direct future
cases.
Attempts by the genetic/intended mother to establish maternity have
met with mixed success. The court in the uncontested case of Andres A.
v. Judith N. (1992) granted the genetic father’s petition for paternity, but
denied the genetic/intended mother’s petition for filiation of maternity as
16. 36 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
not having been covered by statute. The court did note, however, that the
latter could seek a remedy through adoption. On the other hand, in Soos v.
Superior Ct. County of Maricopa (1994), the court did not define the ge-
netic/intended mother as the legal mother, but it did agree with a lower
court ruling that the Arizona statute specifying that the gestational surro-
gate should be the legal mother is unconstitutional. The genetic/intended
mother had argued successfully under the equal protection clause that she
should have the right to rebut the maternity of the gestational surrogate, just
as her husband, the genetic father, could rebut the paternity of the surro-
gate’s husband. The husband appealed the decision as his wife had filed for
divorce and he did not want to contest custody with her; he intended to have
the gestational surrogate give up her parental rights. The court allowed the
lower court decision to stand, adding that the child should not be left with-
out a mother.
While surrogacy cases generally involve no more than two mothers,
two cases were found involving three mothers. In re Marriage of Litowitz
(2000, rev’d Litowitz v. Litowitz, 2002) involved a divorcing couple and a
dispute over frozen embryos. The frozen embryos remained from an IVF
procedure in which a donor embryo from one woman was implanted in a
gestational surrogate (the second woman), and the resulting child given to a
third woman, Mrs. Litowitz. Mrs. Litowitz wanted to have the remaining
embryos implanted in another gestational surrogate, and the husband
wanted the embryos donated. The court ruled the embryos should be do-
nated. In re Marriage of Buzzanca (1998) involved a California couple
who hired a surrogate to gestate a donated embryo genetically unrelated to
the couple or the surrogate (in effect, the child had five parents). Both hus-
band and wife consented to the process, but one month before the baby was
born, the couple separated. The husband fought the inclusion of child sup-
port in the divorce agreement. The lower court declared that the child had
“no parents” and suggested that the child could be adopted by the social
mother. The social mother appealed, and the appellate court declared the
social mother and father to be the parents, and remanded the case back to
the lower court to decide issues of child support and visitation.
Finally, in what may be considered a de facto surrogacy arrangement,
the embryo of Mr. and Mrs. Perry-Rogers was mistakenly implanted into
Mrs. Fasano during an IVF procedure. Both couples were informed of the
mistake about one month after the implantation. Mrs. Fasano chose to con-
tinue the pregnancy and, after the birth, surrendered the baby to its biologi-
cal/intended parents, but only after the Perry-Rogers signed an agreement
to allow the Fasanos visitation. The Perry-Rogers had been granted cus-
tody of the child in an earlier case, and then sought to reverse a lower court
17. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 37
decision granting visitation rights to the Fasanos (Perry-Rogers v. Fasano,
2000, appeal denied Perry-Rogers v. Fasano, 2001). The case was re-
versed and visitation rights were removed.
IVF and Oocyte Donation
In most instances, IVF and IVF using oocyte donation should not
pose legal problems for defining parentage as the intended mother is
also the gestational mother, and her husband is presumed to be the fa-
ther. Nevertheless, three situations might pose problems as indicated by
relevant case law.
First, in IVF utilizing oocyte donation, maternity might be chal-
lenged in the event of a divorce. For example, in McDonald v. McDonald
(1994, “findings of fact/conclusions of law at” McDonald v. McDonald,
1998), the court heard an appeal of a lower court decision to grant tempo-
rary custody to Mrs. McDonald, the gestational/intended mother. The es-
tranged husband argued that she should not have maternity rights as the
children (twins) had not been reproduced from her ova. The court affirmed
the lower court decision, nonetheless, and held that his wife was indeed to
be considered the legal mother on the basis of the original intentions of the
parties. (Two states, Florida and Oklahoma, specifically relieve an oocyte
donor (genetic mother) of responsibility.)
Secondly, paternity might be an issue if an IVF procedure took place
after a divorce or if donor semen was utilized in the procedure. For ex-
ample, in In Interest of O.G.M. (1999), the embryo created from ovum and
sperm from a married couple was not implanted until after they divorced.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court decision granting the husband’s
petition to be declared the legal father.
Finally, definitions of parentage might become problematic if an IVF
clinic should make a mistake in the embryo transfer process (see
Perry-Rogers v. Fasano above).
Summary of Findings for ART Statutes and Litigation
State Statutes. About two-thirds of all states have legitimated AID. Stat-
utes generally serve the twin purpose of identifying who may use this tech-
nology and who is responsible for the welfare of AID-produced offspring.
About half of these states legitimate AID only for married couples, and pre-
sume husbands to be legal fathers unless they had withdrawn consent prior
to conception. Statutes likewise typically relieve donors of responsibility
18. 38 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
for the child. Notwithstanding the latest version of the UPA, few states ex-
plicitly sanction AID for unmarried women.
Surrogate motherhood has received far less legislative direction than
artificial insemination: less than one-third of all states have enacted stat-
utes. Most of these have side-stepped defining parentage through laws
that prohibit commercial surrogacy, while failing to legitimate noncom-
mercial surrogacy. In the five states that legitimate noncommercial surro-
gacy, the assignment of parental rights and obligations is a contractual
matter guided by the intentions of the parties. In two of these states,
gestational surrogacy, but not traditional surrogacy, is sanctioned–thus
signifying preference for the genetic definition. In two other states, rec-
ognition of the biological link allows women who reproduce through
traditional surrogacy to change their minds. Oocyte donation has re-
ceived even less attention: two states have pertinent statutes, both re-
lieving the genetic mother of responsibility.
Court Cases. As the assignment of parentage has become problematical
given the multiplicity of parenting agents with ART, courts have increas-
ingly turned to nonbiological evidence, mainly the best interests of the
child and the original intentions of parties. In terms of the latter, agreement
to serve as AI donor or to participate in a surrogacy arrangement, consent
for oocyte or embryo donation, or consent for adoption have served as ex-
plicit statements. Various behaviors, such as the provision of economic
support, suggest intentions when such documents have not been available.
This application of explicit or implied intentionality indicates that contract
law has thus become an additional means by which a parent/child relation-
ship is legitimated.
AID cases have primarily centered on the rights and responsibilities
of mother’s ex-partners to AID children following the dissolution of
marriage or cohabitation. Consent and presumptions of paternity, where
consent has been absent, have served as rationale for holding ex-hus-
bands responsible for support. Cohabiting men also have been held re-
sponsible if they agreed to the procedure; they have obtained visitation
rights regardless of the presence of contract. Cases following the disso-
lution of lesbian relationships, conversely, have centered on ex-part-
ner’s attempts to obtain parental standing. Although such litigation has
had little success, even with evidence of long-term financial support
and involvement in the lives of offspring, those lesbians who had
adopted partner children increasingly have been granted visitation
rights. Legal suits initiated by AI donors wishing to establish paternity
generally have not been successful unless prior agreements had been
19. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 39
contracted, or subsequent behavior suggests they had acted as social fa-
thers.
Case law involving surrogacy largely reflects the adjudication of pa-
rental rights between contending parties. Traditional surrogacy cases
have centered on genetic/intended fathers suing surrogates who were
unwilling to relinquish rights to AI–conceived offspring. Custody out-
comes generally have been based on the best interests of the child and,
to a lesser extent, on presumptions of maternity and paternity. In gesta-
tional surrogacy, gestating mothers not willing to relinquish rights have
tended to be even less successful in light of the biological link between
offspring and intended parents. Original intent has served as an impor-
tant rationale for decisions in these cases. Moreover, the increasing
credibility of laboratory tests should make the biological link even more
relevant in allowing non-gestational (genetic/intended) mothers to rebut
the maternity of gestating mothers. Finally, cases concerning donated
embryos either gestated by the intended mother or by a third woman es-
sentially have been decided according to the original intentions of the
parties.
ART AND CHANGING SOCIAL ROLES
It is clear that the legal trends discussed herein are occurring within
the context of more inclusive recent changes in American social struc-
ture and attitudes. The variability in legal definitions of father and
mother now emerging through ART, for example, mirrors the reality of
changing gender-role and parenting definitions in general. Whereas not
long ago fathers primarily related to children in terms of providing eco-
nomic support, they are now assuming care-giving and nurturing roles
(Pleck, cited in Mariglio, Amato, Day, & Lamb, 2000). Early AID court
cases involving divorce found husbands trying to avoid support by de-
nying paternity. Now donors are suing birth mothers so they can have
access to children, and surrogacy cases show fathers claiming that
ex-wives are not legitimate mothers in order to gain sole custody.
Another case in point is the legitimation of ART for single women.
While limited to a few states at present, it reflects both the increasing
prevalence and the growing social acceptance of single-parent families.
For many, being married is no longer viewed as a prerequisite for repro-
duction, and women, who bear children alone by necessity or choice,
are far less stigmatized today than in the near past. The increasing rec-
ognition of contractual parenting through AID and surrogate arrange-
20. 40 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
ments also mirrors the growing autonomy and assertiveness of both
single and married women throughout American society.
Finally, the recent adoption of AID-conceived children by lesbian
partners should be recognized in light of broader social changes, particu-
larly, the increasing demands by gays and lesbians for full and legitimate
participation in all social institutions, including marriage and family, and
the growing tolerance of the public towards them. Survey research
(Yang, 1997), for example, indicates rising support for gay and lesbian
rights: while most Americans are still reluctant to endorse homosexual
marriage or adoption (Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2003),
they also no longer believe that discrimination in such areas as employ-
ment and housing should be allowed to persist.
Nonetheless, resistance to the legitimation of ART remains substantial
despite such broader social changes. For one, those who argue that the
family as a social institution is deteriorating are likely to see the growing
employment of ART as further evidence of its impending demise. A
compelling state interest in the protection of the family has been estab-
lished by the courts, and procreative liberty rights have not yet been ex-
tended in court decisions to include ART. The use of ART could possibly
thus be prohibited altogether or remain only accessible to specific popula-
tions, such as married heterosexuals. Yet, the law has never explicitly de-
fined “family,” although court decisions have to be interpreted to
demonstrate a legal preference–such as those holding that a child’s inter-
ests are best-served by having two parents. The prohibition of ART has
been based consequently on other issues (for example, bans against sur-
rogacy have primarily reflected concerns about compensation).
Even in the face of prohibition, nevertheless, it is doubtful that people
will refrain from employing ART. The decision to establish families
through this technology is indicative of the great value that Americans
continue to place on genetically-related offspring. It appears evident as
well that those who desire parenthood so much that they would use ART,
also would put a great deal of effort into becoming an effective parent
(Golombok et al., 1995). Legitimation would protect their interests and
would likewise serve the interests of the growing number of children
produced through this technology.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTITIONERS
Clinical practitioners may provide services at any stage in the process
of ART utilization, and their clients may be considered to be anyone
21. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 41
participating in the procedure. Participants would not only include ge-
netic, social, and gestational parents, but the potential or actual off-
spring, as well as medical and legal specialists.
Even prior to deciding to initiate an ART procedure, practitioners
may counsel couples who are adjusting to the pronouncement that they
are infertile. Couples frequently respond to infertility as they would to
the death of a child, experiencing significant grief reactions. Greil
(1991) found that women were more likely than men to assume a
“spoiled identity” following a diagnosis of infertility, sometimes result-
ing in infertility becoming a master status. Practitioners may provide
supportive therapy to infertile clients during this process. Individuals
who go through genetic counseling may also work with social workers,
psychologists, or psychiatrists, who may highlight alternatives for utili-
zation of ART. Thus, as couples initiate ART involvement, they may al-
ready have experience with employing clinical practitioners to help
with the resolution of psychosocial issues.
ART utilization begins with consideration of participation. The role
of clinical practitioners at this stage involves preparatory counseling to
explore involvement in a new experience, and what that involvement
might mean to the couple or individual. Such counseling should ac-
quaint them with the demands of ART participation and allow them to
anticipate their feelings. Preparatory counseling should examine issues
in common with adoption, but also those that are unique, such as the
physical intrusiveness of some procedures and the significant financial
costs that will be incurred without reasonable certainty of success.
Knowledge of the legal definitions of parentage can be useful to clin-
ical practitioners at this stage so that client participation reflects truly in-
formed consent. Practitioners thus may serve as educators for client
consumers and for information and referral. They may familiarize
themselves with the legal status of usage of ART, legal definitions of
parentage, and possible sources of legal conflict through literature such
as the present piece, and through workshops and consultation with legal
experts. For example, one of the authors recently attended a continuing
education program on ART in which the process of adoption of em-
bryos from other states was summarized. Legal knowledge will be espe-
cially critical for those practitioners who serve as advocates for
alternative families. Lisa Laspina-Williams v. Cheryl Laspina-Williams
(1999) is a case in point, underlining the importance of adoption peti-
tions to lesbian and gay partners not biologically related to the child so
that their rights can be protected in the event of relationship dissolution.
Although practitioners should be familiar with state statutes and case
22. 42 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
law, they should also insist that clients seek legal advice prior to finaliz-
ing their decision. Practitioners might facilitate such referral by provid-
ing clients with a list of local lawyers having relevant expertise.
Very importantly, practitioners should counsel clients as early as
possible about the strains and conflicts that could arise between parties
participating in the ART process. Court cases involving disputes over
rights to ART–conceived children make us mindful of the emotional
bonds that can develop between a social parent and a child, a surrogate
and a child, or even between a gamete donor and a child. While statutes
or court decisions may define legal parentage, such bonds cannot be
legislated or litigated away. Counseling clients about the nature of at-
tachments, and the fact that they are normal within the context of ART
(Fischer & Gillman, 1991), should help intentional parents to better un-
derstand and deal with those key others who may be assisting them in
the process.
Prior to ART procedures, clinical practitioners may also conduct
psychosocial assessments. In this capacity, they would importantly seek
to protect the interests of the children to be produced through ART.
Where surrogacy is legitimate, state statutes often require that couples
and surrogates be screened by social workers (given that constitutional
rights have not been extended to the utilization of ART, such screening
is not considered to be in violation of participant’s rights). Courts em-
ploy these assessments in their decision to endorse or reject contracts
and to determine if a woman is fit to serve as a surrogate (see Virginia’s
surrogacy statute). Practitioners may also find that screening tools used
in adoption can be modified for ART clients (Parker, 1984).
Once the decision has been made to participate in ART, clinical prac-
titioners may serve clients with supportive therapy. Some ART proce-
dures are expensive, time consuming, physically painful and exhausting,
and emotionally draining. Additionally, certain procedures have very low
success rates (ISLAT Working Group, 1998). Participants in IVF, in
particular, may need supportive therapy to adjust to failed at-
tempts–failures which can be especially difficult for those who have
also had to deal with the grief associated with infertility. Additionally,
participants may seek counseling to facilitate decisions on whether to
continue ART participation or abandon their quest for a genetically-re-
lated child. Participants who are without partners may especially benefit
from supportive therapy during pregnancy.
Following successful ART procedures, clinical practitioners may be
utilized in a variety of ways. Parents of children born as a result of ART
may seek counseling regarding the advisability of, and manner in
23. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 43
which, children should be informed of the nature of their birth (see
McWhinnie, 1996, on scripts and scenarios for dealing with children’s
questions). Singles and lesbian and gay couples who have parented
through ART may find counseling useful in dealing with issues relevant
to alternative families.
ART–conceived offspring may also significantly benefit from coun-
seling as they move through the lifecycle. They are similar to adoptees,
step-children, and single-parent children in that they are not apt to have
all biological parents involved in their lives. Likewise, they may not
only feel abandoned by their absent parent(s), but have a deep need to
find and relate to him, her, or them. (Indeed, this need can even extend
to donor siblings as is evident in the recent creation of an Internet regis-
try by an AID–conceived boy and his mother (Kramer & Kramer,
2000)). While we are not suggesting that all ART–conceived offspring
require counseling, no doubt many would benefit from it. Practitioners
must become familiar with state policies regarding donor anonymity.
Practitioners may also serve as mediators should disputes arise be-
tween participants in ART as to their rights and responsibilities (see
Wilhelmus, 1998, on the use of mediation in interpersonal disputes).
Resulting litigation can add to the great financial expense and emotional
pain already experienced by participants. Mediation, although not le-
gally binding, may serve to avoid adjudication, recognize the emotional
aspects of the conflict, and facilitate reasonable compromise among
participants (see also Strom-Gottfriedson, 1998, on the use of negotia-
tion to resolve conflict between unequal parties). Genograms may be
used to facilitate the mediation process by clarifying relationships to the
child (McGoldrich & Gerson, 1985). Knowledge of court cases and leg-
islation is especially critical for practitioners at this stage in the ART
process. For a mediated agreement to become legally binding, it must
involve a written contract or a court order (Wilhelmus, 1998).
We should add that some practitioners may find their involvement in
ART ethically problematical. For example, accusations have been ad-
vanced that the employment of ART by singles and homosexual cou-
ples undermines the family as a social institution, that financial
compensation for surrogates is equivalent to baby selling, and that this
arrangement is tantamount to class exploitation in light of the typically
great economic inequalities between intentional parents and surrogates.
Practitioners should examine these debates, identify their positions, and
then determine if and how they should deliver their professional ser-
vices to clients.
24. 44 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
Finally, clinical practitioners can play a highly instrumental role in
expanding our knowledge about the social and psychological conse-
quences of this technology. Given that little is known of the long-term
effects of ART usage, they will gain important understandings and in-
sights through the counseling relationship. Such information generated
by practitioners, in turn, should have critical value for policy-makers as
they shape laws that would best serve the interests of the various publics
involved with this technology.
NOTES
1. Artificial insemination less often involves impregnation by combined husband
and donor’s semen (AIC) or by semen of the birth mother’s husband (AIH). AIH and
AIC may be used when the husband’s sperm count or motility is low, and, in addition,
AIH may be used if the husband is impotent or has an irregular penis. AID may be also
used if the husband is azoospermic or to avoid transmission of a genetic abnormality, or
in cases of RH factor incompatibility (Snowden et al., 1983). Any infertility treatment
may be used for infertility of nonspecific origin.
2. While AID was first successfully accomplished over a century ago in the United
States, immediate reaction to it was negative. However, by the 1970s, it was commonly
being prescribed for infertile couples (Curie-Cohen et al.,1979; Snowden & Mitchell,
1983).
3. Traditional surrogacy is typically arranged due to a failure to ovulate or an in-
ability to gestate a fetus to term. It may also be used to avoid transmission of genetic ab-
normalities or if a pregnancy would seriously threaten the woman’s health.
The first commercial traditional surrogacy arrangement in the United States occurred
in 1980. It is difficult to determine prevalence today. As of 1994, there were eight sur-
rogacy agencies, but surrogacies arranged through private lawyers appear to be com-
mon (Ragone, 1994).
4. IVF was first used for women with blocked or missing fallopian tubes.
Subsequently, it has been employed for male infertility. More recent refinements in-
clude zygote intra-fallopian transfer (ZIFT) and gamete intra-fallopian transfer
(GIFT).
The first successful IVF procedure occurred in England in 1978. Since then, IVF clin-
ics have been established in the United States with varied degrees of success
(D’Adamo, 1988; Lasker & Borg, 1994).
5. Gestational surrogacy may be used when a woman ovulates, but cannot gestate
due to abnormalities in the uterus, a lack of a uterus, or when gestation would endanger
the woman. The first gestational surrogacy occurred in 1986 (Ragone, 1994).
6. Of the technologies just outlined, AID is by far the most commonly employed in
the U.S., accounting for approximately 60,000 annual births by the late 1990s. Surro-
gacy arrangements, on the other hand, were estimated as producing only about 1,000
births (ISLAT Working Group, 1998).
25. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 45
7. See also Eichler (1996), who examined the policy recommendations of the Ca-
nadian Royal Commission on New Reproduction Technologies and found that only
five out of 293 recommendations contained family-oriented rationales; the New York
State Task Force on Life and the Law (1998), on policy recommendations for New
York state law, and Langdridge and Blyth (2001), on European laws.
8. The Uniform Parentage Act, 2000, borrowed heavily from, and supercedes, the
Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act, 1988, authored by the same
organization.
9. Artificial insemination statues include Alabama Code Sec. 2617-21, Alaska
Stat. Ann. Sec. 25.20.045, Arizona Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 12-2451, Arkansas Code Ann.
Secs. 9-10-201 to 202, California Civ. Code Sec. 7005 (a)(b), Colorado Rev. Stat. Sec.
19-4-106, Connecticut Gen. Stat. Ann. Secs. 45-69f to 69n, Florida Stat. Ann. Sec.
742.11, Georgia Code Ann. Sec. 19-7-21, Idaho Code Secs. 395401 to 5407, Illinois
Ann. Stat. Ch 750, Para. 40, Kansas Stat. Ann. Secs. 23-128 to 23-130, Louisiana Stat.
Ann. Art. 188, Maryland Est. & Trusts Code Ann. Sec. 1-206 (b), Massachusetts Gen.
Laws. Ann. Ch. 46 Sec. 4B, Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. Sec. 333.2824 (6), Minnesota
Stat. Ann. Sec. 257.56, Missouri Ann. Stat. Sec. 193.085, Montana Code Ann. Sec.
40-6-106, Nevada Rev. Stat. Sec. 126.061, New Hampshire Rev. Stat. Ann. 168 B:1
through 32, New Jersey Stat. Ann. Sec. 9:17-44, New Mexico Stat. Ann. Sec. 40-11-6,
New York Dom. Rel. Law Sec. 73, North Carolina Gen. Stat. Sec. 49A, North Dakota
Century Code Secs. 14-18-01 to 07, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Secs. 3111.30 to 38,
Oklahoma Stat. Ann. Ch. 24, Secs. 551-553, Oregon Rev. Stat. Secs. 109.239 to
109.247, 677.355 to 677.370, Tennessee Code Ann. Sec. 68-3-306, Texas Fam. Code
Ann. Sec. 12.03, Virginia Code Secs. 20-156 to 20-165, Washington Rev. Code Ann.
Sec. 26.26.050, Wisconsin Stat. Ann. Sec. 891.40 and Wyoming Stat. Sec. 14-2-103.
10. States explicitly legitimating AID for only married couples are Alabama,
Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New York, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, and Tennessee.
11. Statutes in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Virginia,
Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming may provide such protection.
12. Cases that follow the pattern of recognizing a child conceived by AID during a
marriage as legitimate and assigning rights and responsibilities of parenthood to the
ex-husband upon divorce include Strnad v. Strnad (1948), People v. Sorensen (1968), S.
v. S. (1981), State ex rel. H. v. P. (1982), R.S. v. R.S. (1983), Brooks v. Fair (1988), K.B. v.
N.B. (1991), and Levin v. Levin (1993, superseded by Levin v. Levin, 1994). In only two
early cases, Doornbos v. Doornbos (1956) and Gursky v. Gursky (1963), the child was de-
clared to be illegitimate, although in the latter case the ex-husband was required to pay
child support as the court ruled that a contract was implicit in his consent to the procedure.
13. In Interest of R.C. (1989) involved an attempt by a semen donor, J.R., to establish
paternity rights to a child conceived by AID of an unmarried woman, E.C. Following birth,
E.C. asked J.R. to sign a parental release. He refused and filed a motion to establish pater-
nity. The lower court limited discovery of their agreement and blocked his attempt to estab-
lish paternity. The appellate court held that statutes extinguishing parental rights of semen
donors in AID do not apply when the donor is known to the recipient and when the recipi-
ent is unmarried. The court also considered the parties’ agreement and subsequent conduct
in determining the relationship of the donor to the child. The agreement between J.R. and
E.C. is unclear, but J.R. alleged that he donated his semen with the understanding that he
26. 46 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
would be treated as the father of the child. His subsequent conduct, e.g., setting up a trust
fund and providing for the baby in his will, reflected this claim.
14. Jhordan C. v. Mary K. (1986) involved an action brought by a single male donor to
establish paternity and visitation rights. The mother and her female friend countered his ac-
tion with a motion for joint legal custody and visitation rights for the female friend who did
not live with the mother. It is unclear what was stipulated in the original agreement between
Jhordan C. and Mary K., but Mary K. inseminated herself. Although she also listed
Jhordan C. as the father on the birth certificate and also permitted him to establish a rela-
tionship with the child, Mary K. eventually refused to allow him visitation. The lower court
granted visitation, but ordered him to reimburse the county for public assistance provided
the child. Mary K. was awarded sole custody and autonomy in decisions concerning the
child’s welfare. The appellate court affirmed the lower court decision, and refused to apply
a California AID statute that exempts the donor from parental rights and responsibilities,
and protects women from paternity claims by the donor. The decision was based on the
lack of participation in the insemination by a licensed physician.
15. L.A.L., the mother, sought to prevent blood testing to establish paternity of the
sperm donor, D.A.L. until the applicability of AID statutes could be determined.
D.A.L. and L.A.L. signed an agreement prior to insemination that the donor would not
have parental rights or responsibilities. Subsequent to the birth, he sought to establish
paternity. The appellate court stopped the paternity tests and remanded to the lower
court to determine if the AI laws applied. If applicable, the donor would have no rights.
16. Another case, Karin T. v. Michael T. (1985), suggests that when mothers are unable
to financially support their AID-conceived children, parental responsibilities may be im-
posed on nontraditional parents. In this case, the New York Department of Social Services
brought suit against Michael T. to financially support two children conceived through AID.
The court agreed that Michael T., actually a female who claimed a male identity, could not
avoid parental responsibilities as the defendant had signed an artificial insemination con-
sent form that recognized her as the father of the child.
17. Note, however, that lesbians in committed relationships had been previously
unsuccessful in establishing parental rights. For example, in In re A.D. on behalf of P.D.
(1985), a mother sought to have the last name of her AID-conceived child changed to that
of her female friend with whom she had lived for several years, stating that her friend was
in effect a parent, but without legal rights or obligations. The court, acting in loco parentis,
denied the petition, deeming that the child’s best interests would not be served. Likewise, in
Jhordan C. v. Mary K. (1986) mentioned above, Victoria, a friend of Mary’s, was awarded
visitation rights with Mary’s consent, but was denied de facto parental status.
18. Surrogate motherhood statues include Arizona Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 25-218, Ar-
kansas Code Ann. Secs. 9-10-201 to 203, Florida Stat. Ann. 63.212 $ Secs. 742.13 to
742.17, Indiana Code Ann. Secs. 31-8-1-1 through 5, 31-8-2-1 through 3, Kentucky
Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 199.590, Louisiana Stat. Ann. Rev. Sec. 9:2713, Michigan Stat.
Ann. Sec. 25.248, Nebraska Rev. Stat. Sec. 25-21.200, Nevada Rev. Stat. Sec. 126.045,
New Hampshire Stat. Ann. 168-B:1-32, New York Dom. Rel. Law Sec. 121, North Da-
kota Century Code Secs. 14-18-01 through 07, Utah Code Sec. 76-7-204, Virginia
Code Secs. 20-156 through 165, and Washington Code Ann. Secs. 26.26.210 to 270.
19. Violation of this statute typically is considered a misdemeanor. However, stat-
ute violation in Michigan is treated as a felony, and in New York, a second violation
constitutes a felony.
20. While statutes in Florida, Nevada, and Virginia prohibit compensation, they al-
low the payment of necessary living expenses.
27. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 47
21. The Arkansas statute stipulates that a child born to a surrogate mother is the
child of (a) the biological father and his wife, (b) the biological father only, if he is un-
married, or (c) the woman intended to be the mother, if she is unmarried and donor se-
men is utilized.
22. Surrogacy was found not to violate state adoption statutes in Surrogate
Parenting Associates, Inc. v. Commonwealth (1986) and In re Baby Girl L.J. (1986). But,
in Doe v. Kelley (1981 certiorari denied, Doe v. Kelly, 1983), In re Baby M. (1988, super-
seded by statute as stated in In re Adoption of Children by G.P.B., 1999), and In re Adop-
tion of Paul (1990), the courts held that it did violate state statutes.
REFERENCES
Adoption of Galen, 680 N.E. 2d 70 (Mass. 1997).
Adoption of Matthew B., 284 Cal. Rptr. 18 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1991), cert. denied
Nancy B. v. Charlotte M., 503 U.S. 991, 112 S. Ct. 1685 (1992).
Andres A. v. Judith N., 591 N.Y.S. 2d 946 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1992).
Andrews, L.B. (1984). The stork market: The law of the new reproductive technolo-
gies. American Bar Association Journal, 10, 50-56.
Anna J. v. Mark C., 286 Cal Rptr. 369 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1991).
Anonymous v. Anonymous, No. P-8572/91, 1991 WL 228555 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. Oct 01,
1991).
Anonymous v. Anonymous, 542 N.Y.S. 2d 586 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1989).
Arditti, R., Klein R., & Minden, S. (Eds.). (1989). Test-tube women: What future for
motherhood? London: Pandora Press.
Barnae v. Barnae, 943 P. 2d 1036 (N.M. App. 1997).
Baruch, E., D’Adamo, A. Jr., & Seager, J. (Eds.). (1988). Embryos, ethics, and women’s
rights: Exploring the new reproductive technologies. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Belsito v. Clark, 644 N.E. 2d 760 (Ohio 1994).
Blankenship, K.M., Rushing, B., Onorato, S.A., & White, R. (1993). Reproductive
technologies and the U.S. courts. Gender & Society, 7, 8-31.
Brasfield v. Brasfield 679 So. 2d 1091 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996) reh’g denied.
Brooks v. Fair, 532 N.E. 2d 308 (Ohio App. 1988).
Capron, A. (1984). The new reproductive possibilities: Seeking a moral basis for con-
certed action in a pluralistic society. Law, Medicine, and Health Care, 12, 192-198.
Corea, G. (1985). The mother machine: Reproductive technology from artificial insemi-
nation to artificial womb. New York: Harper.
Curiale v. Reagan, 272 Cal. Rptr. 520 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1990).
Curie-Cohen, M., Luttrell, L., & Shapiro, S. (1979). Current practice of artificial in-
semination by donor in the United States. The New England Journal of Medicine,
300, 585-590.
D’Adamo, A., Jr. (1988). Reproductive technologies: The two sides of a glass jar. In E.
Baruch, A. D’Adamo, & J. Seager (Eds.). Embryos, ethics, and women’s rights (pp.
9-30). New York: Harrington Park Press.
Doe v. Doe, 710 A. 2d 1297 (Conn. 1998), overruled in part by In re Joshua S., 796 A.
2d 1141 (Conn. 2002).
28. 48 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
Doe v. Kelley, 307 N.W. 2d 438 (Mich. 1981) certiorari denied, Doe v. Kelly, 459 U.S.
1183 (1983).
Doe v. Roe, 717 A. 2d 706 (Conn. 1998).
Dolgin, J.L. (1996). Suffer the children: Nostalgia, contradiction, and the new repro-
ductive technologies. Arizona State Law Journal, 28, 473-542.
Doornbos v. Doornbos, 139 N.E. 2d 844 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1956).
Dunkim v. Boskey, 82 Cal. App. 4th 171 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2000).
E.N.O. v. L.M.M., 711 N.E. 2d 886 (Mass. 1999), cert. denied L.M.M. v. E.N.O., 528
U.S. 1005 (1999).
Edwards, R. & Steptoe, P. (1980). A matter of life: The story of a medical breakthrouqh.
New York: William Morrow.
Eichler, M. (1996). The construction of technologically-mediated families. Journal of
Comparative Family Studies, 27, 281-308.
Firestone, S. (1970). The dialectic of sex. New York: William Morrow.
Fischer, S. & Gillman, I. (1991). Surrogate motherhood: Attachment, attitudes, and so-
cial support. Psychiatry, 54, 13-20.
Gillem v. Gillem, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 841 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
Golombok, S., Cook, R., Bish, A., & Murray, C. (1995). Families created by the new
reproductive technologies: Quality of parenting, and social and emotional develop-
ment of the children. Child Development, 66, 285-298.
Greil, A. (1991). Not yet pregnant: Infertile couples in contemporary America. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Guardianship of Z.C.W., 71 Cal. App. 4th 524 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 199), cert. denied,
Sub nominee at Crandall v. Wagner, 528 U.S. 1056 (1999).
Gursky v. Gursky, 242 N.Y.S. 2d 406 (N.Y. 1963).
Happel v. Mecklenburger, 427 N.E. 2d 974 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1981).
Henry, V.L. (1993). A tale of three women: A survey of the rights and responsibilities of
unmarried women who conceive by alternative insemination and a model for legislative
reform. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 19, 285-311.
Holtzman v. Knott, 533 N.W. 2d 419 (Wis. 1995).
Huddleston v. Infertility Center of America, Inc., 700 A. 2d 453 (Pa. 1997).
In Interest of O.G.M., 988 S.W. 2d 473 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1999).
In Interest of R.C., 775 P. 2d 27 (Colo. 1989).
In Matter of Adoption of Caitlin, 622 N.Y.S. 2d 835 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1994).
In re A.D. on behalf of P.D., 493 N.Y.S. 2d 404 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1985).
In re Adoption of Baby A, 877 P. 2d 107 (Or. 1994).
In re Adoption of Baby Z, 724 A. 2d 1035 (Conn. 1999).
In re Adoption of Paul, 550 N.Y.S. 2d 815 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1990).
In re Adoption of Samant, 970 S.W. 2d 249 (Ark. 1998).
In re Baby Girl L.J., 505 N.Y.S. 2d 813 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1986).
In re Baby M., 537 A. 2d 1227 (N.J. 1988) superseded by statute as stated in In re Adop-
tion of Children by G.P.B., 736 A. 2d 1277 (N.J. 1999).
In re C.C.G., 762 A. 2d 724 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000), vacated by, remanded by, sub nominee
In re Adoption of R.B.F., 803 A. 2d 1195 (Pa. 2002).
In re K.M., 653 N.E. 2d 888 (Ill. 1995).
In re Marriage of Buzzanca, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1998).
29. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 49
In re Marriage of Litowitz, 10 P. 3d 1086 (Wash. App. 2000) rev’d Litowitz v. Litowitz,
48 P. 3d 261 (Wash. 2002).
In re Marriage of Moschetta, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 893 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1994).
In Matter of Adoption of Caitlin, 622 N.Y.S. 2d 835 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1994).
In re Ray., 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 548 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001), aff’d in part and rev’d in
part, cause remanded, sub nominee In re Bonfield, 773 N.E. 2d 507 (Ohio 2002).
In re Simon A.W., 1997 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1480 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 27, 1997).
ISLAT Working Group. (1998). ART into science: Regulation of fertility techniques.
Science. 281, 651-652.
J.C. v. C.T., 711 N.E. 2d 886 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2000).
J.P.C. v. O.C.B., (797 So. 2d 485 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000).
Jackson v. Jackson, 739 N.E. 2d 1203 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
Jhordan C. v. Mary K., 179 Cal. App. 3d 386 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 1986).
K.B. v. N.B., 811 S.W. 2d 634 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1991).
Karin T. v. Michael T., 484 N.Y.S. 2d 780 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1985).
Keller, S. (1971). Does the family have a future? Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 11,
1-14.
Krambule v. Krambule, 994 P. 2d 210 (Utah 1999).
Kramer, W. & Kramer, R. (2000). The donor sibling registry. com. Retrieved February 7,
2004, from http://www.donorsiblingregistry.com
L.A.L. v. D.A.L., 714 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1998); “rev’d and remanded,” Lamaritata v.
Lucas, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 11702 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Aug. 16, 2002).
Lane v. Lane, 912 P. 2d 290 (N.M. 1996), cert. denied, 911 P. 2d 883 (N.M. 1996).
Langdridge, D. & Blyth, E. (2001). Regulation of assisted conception services in Eu-
rope: Implications of the new reproductive technologies for “the family.” The Jour-
nal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 23, 45-64.
Lasker, J. & Borg, S. (1994). In search of parenthood: Coping with infertility and high
tech conception. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Leckie v. Voorhies, 875 P. 2d 521 (Ore. 1994).
Levin v. Levin, 626 N.E. 2d 527 (Ind. Ct.App.1993), superseded by Levin v. Levin, 645
N.E. 2d 601 (Ind. 1994).
Lisa Laspina-Williams v. Cheryl Laspina-Williams 742 A. 2d 840 (Conn. Super. Ct.
1999).
Lorber, J. (1988). In vitro fertilization and gender politics. In E. Baruch, A. D’Adamo, & J.
Seager (Eds.), Embryos, ethics, and women’s rights (pp. 117-133). New York: Harring-
ton Park Press.
Lorber, J. (1992). Choice, gift, or patriarchal bargain? Women’s consent to in vitro fer-
tilization in male infertility. In H.B. Holmes and L.M. Purdy (Eds.), Feminist per-
spectives in medical ethics (pp. 169-180). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
M. v. C., 377 A. 2d 821 (N.J. Juv. & Dom. Rel. Ct. 1977).
Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. & Lamb, M. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in
the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1173-1191.
McDonald v. McDonald, 608 N.Y.S. 2d 477 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t 1994), “findings
of fact/conclusions of law at” McDonald v. McDonald, 684 N.Y.S. 2d 414 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct. 1998).
30. 50 JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK
McGoldrich, M. & Gerson, R. (1985). Genograms in family assessment. New York:
Norton & Company.
McWhinnie, A. (1996). Families following assisted conception: What do we tell our
child? Dundee: University of Dundee Press.
Music v. Rachford, 654 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1995).
National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws. (1973). Uniform Par-
entage Act. Hyannis, Massachusetts: Author.
National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws. (1988). Uniform Status
of Children of Assisted Conception Act. Washington, D.C.: Author.
National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws. (2000). Uniform Par-
entage Act. St. Augustine, Florida: Author.
New York State Task Force on Life and the Law. (1998). Assisted reproductive technol-
ogies: Analysis and recommendation for public policy. New York: Author.
Ogburn, W. & Nimkoff, M. (1955). Technology and the changing family. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Paraskevas v. Tunic, 1997 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1101 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 23, 1997).
Parker, P.J. (1984). Surrogate motherhood, psychiatric screening and informed con-
sent, baby selling, and public policy. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry
and the Law, 12, 21-39.
Parsons, R. (1991). The mediator role in social work practice. Social Work, 36, 483-87.
People v. Sorensen, 437 P. 2d 495 (Ca. 1968).
Perry-Rogers v. Fasano, 715 N.Y.S. 2d 19 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2000) appeal de-
nied Perry-Rogers v. Fasano, 754 N.E. 2d 199 (N.Y. 2001).
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2003). Religious beliefs underpin opposition to
homosexuality. Retrieved February 9, 2004 from http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?
DocID=37
R.R. v. M.H., 689 N.E. 2d 790 (Mass. 1998).
R.S. v. R.S., 670 P. 2d 923 (Kan. 1983).
Ragone, H. (1994). Surrogate motherhood: Conception in the heart. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Robertson, J. (1994). Children of choice: Freedom and the new reproductive technolo-
gies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Robinson, C. (1993). Surrogate motherhood: Implications for the mother-fetus rela-
tionship. In J. Merrick and R. Blank (Eds.), The politics of pregnancy: Policy dilem-
mas in the maternal-fetal relationship (pp. 203-221). New York: The Haworth Press,
Inc.
Rothman, B. (1989). Recreating motherhood: Ideology and technology in a patriarchal
society. New York: W.W. Norton.
S. v. S., 440 A. 2d 64 (N.J. 1981).
S.F. v. M.D, 751 A. 2d 9 (Md. App. 2000).
Skinner v. Oklahoma 316 U.S. 535, 62 S. Ct. 1110 (1942).
Skinner, D.A., & Kohler, J.K. (2002). Parental rights in diverse family contexts: Cur-
rent legal developments. Family Relations, 51, 293-300.
Smith v. Brown, 718 N.E. 2d 844 (Mass. 1999).
Snowden, R., & Mitchell, G. (1983). The artificial family: A consideration of artificial in-
semination by donor. London: Allen & Unwin.
31. Cherylon Robinson and Michael V. Miller 51
Snowden, R., Mitchell, G., & Snowden, E. (1983). Artificial reproduction: A social in-
vestigation. London: Allen & Unwin.
Soos v. Superior Ct., County of Maricopa, 897 P. 2d 1356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
Spallone, P. & Steinberg, D. (eds.). (1987). Made to order: The myth of reproductive and
genetic progress. New York: Pergamon Press.
State ex rel. H. v. P., 457 N.Y.S. 2d 488 (N.Y.App.Div. 1st Dep’t 1982).
Storrow, R.F. (2002). Parenthood by pure intention: Assisted reproduction and the
functional approach to parentage. Hastings Law Journal, 53, 597-670.
Strnad v. Strnad, 78 N.Y.S. 2d 390 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948).
Strom-Gottfried, K. (1998). Applying a conflict resolution framework to disputes in
managed care. Social Work, 43, 393-401.
Surrogate Parenting Associates, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 704 S.W. 2d 209 (Ky. 1986).
Syrkowski v. Appleyard, 362 N.W. 2d 211 (Mich. 1985).
T.B. v. L.R.M., 753 A. 2d 873 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2000) aff’d T.B. v. L.R.M., 786 A. 2d 913
(Pa. 2001).
Thomas S. v. Robin Y. 618 N.Y.S. 2d 356 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1994); “reconsid-
ered,” Thomas S. v. Robin Y., 650 N.E.2d 1328 (N.Y. 1995a); “appeal dismissed with-
out opinion,” Thomas S. v. Robin Y., 655 N.E. 2d 708 (N.Y. 1995b).
Turchyn v. Cornelius, 1999 Ohio App. LEXIS 4129 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999).
V.C. v. M.J.B., 748 A. 2d 539 (N.J. 2000), cert. denied M.J.B. v. V.C. 531 U.S. 926
(2000).
Velte, K.C. (1998/1999). Egging on lesbian maternity: The legal implications of
trigametic in vitro fertilization. American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy
& the Law, 7, 431-464.
Walters, L. (1983). Ethical aspects of surrogate embryo transfer. Journal of the Ameri-
can Medical Association. 250, 2183-2184.
Welborn v. Doe, 394 S.E. 2d 732 (Va. App. 1990).
West v. Superior Court, 69 Cal. Rptr. 2d 160 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1997).
White v. Thompson (In re Thompon), 11 S.W. 3d 913 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999.
Wilhemus, M. (1998). Mediation in kinship care: Another step in the provision of cul-
turally relevant child welfare services. Social Work, 43, 117-126.
Yang, A.S. (1997). The polls–trends: Attitudes toward homosexuality. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 61, 477-507.
Young v. Remy, 1996 Wash. App. LEXIS 862 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec 13, 1996), review
denied by In re Marriage of Young, 937 P. 2d 1102 (Wash. 1997).
Young, A.H. (1998). Reconceiving the family: Challenging the paradigm of the exclu-
sive family. American University Journal of Gender and Law, 6, 505-556.
Zipper, J. & Sevenhuijsen, S. (1987). Surrogacy: Feminist notions of motherhood re-
considered. In M. Stanworth (Ed.) Reproductive technologies: Gender, motherhood
and medicine (pp. 118-138). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.