Lbian and Gay Parents and Reproductive Technologi: The 2008 Atralian and UK Reforms | SprgerLk

Contents:

• PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RPONSIBILY - GAY AND LBIAN UPL
• PARENTAL SENSIVY AND TSIVENS GAY-, LBIAN-, AND HETEROSEXUAL-PARENT FAI WH FANTS NCEIVED G ARTIFICIAL REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQU: DO PARENTS’ GENR AND REGIVER ROLE MATTER?
• CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARD ADOPTS SOCIAL STUDI TEXTBOOKS THAT CLU GAY RIGHTS AFTER WARNGS OM ERNOR
• LBIAN AND GAY PARENTS AND REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGI: THE 2008 ATRALIAN AND UK REFORMS
• TEACHERS FEAR THE CHILLG EFFECT OF FLORIDA'S SO-LLED 'DON'T SAY GAY' LAW

PARENTAL RIGHTS AND RPONSIBILY - GAY AND LBIAN UPL

The fact that a gay male uple whose child was nceived via an artificial sematn procre are not regnised unr law as "parents" - unls they legally adopt the child or obta a parentg orr that formally regnis their rights - n have huge implitns for a fay. In a gay male relatnship where there has been no formal adoptn or there are no orrs specifyg parental rponsibily for the child, a party may apply to the Fay Court as a “person ncerned wh the re, welfare and velopment of the child”. “There is no discrimatn agast children, ” Fay Mister Eugenia Roccella told parliament when she troduced the bill June, explag that the children of gay upl would have accs to school and medil servic jt like those who only have one livg parent.

AbstractThe goal of our study was to exame whether differenc the sensivy and tsivens of fathers and mothers om gay-, lbian-, and heterosexual-parent fai (57 French upl, 47 Dutch upl, and 31 Brish upl) wh their first-born fants were explaed by genr or regiver role, while ntrollg for ntg wh fai, fant temperament, and twship. Footnote 1 The overhl of assisted reproductn law uld hardly have failed to extend to provisns havg a bearg on lbian and gay parenthood and parental rponsibily: sce the origal HFE Act was enacted 1990, there had been an crease both lbians’ and gay men’s e of non-al reproductn and societal acceptance of lbian and gay Atralia, the 2008 reforms to lbian and gay parentg were passed as part of a package of reforms directed at removg discrimatn agast same-sex facto upl Commonwealth legislatn, followg the remendatns ntaed the Atralian Human Rights Commissn’s report Same-Sex: Same Entlements (2007).

I will argue that both England/Wal and Atralia the reformed legal regim of parental rponsibily unarguably provi new optns for the legal regnn of parent–child relatnships lbian or gay hoeholds; but also that the practil efulns or effectivens of the reforms may be limed by the excsive plexy or obscury of the system of parental rponsibily troduced. Furthermore, the reform Acts enurage the formatn of some fay stctur—pecially homonuclear fai—while disuragg the emergence of more imagative and operative parentg nfiguratns at odds wh heteronormative parentg scripts, perpetuatg a pattern tablished the pre-reform perd (McCandls 2005) focg my analysis on legal provisns that allote parental rponsibily before somebody appli for a urt orr to alter that allotn, my clam is that the availabily of such orrs to remedy what would be an otherwise aquate allotn of parental rponsibily nnot be termative of whether or not the legal system do jtice to the terts of lbian and gay fai wh children. However, even leavg asi the qutn of the succs of such applitns, Footnote 4 the availabily of urt-based mechanism for acquirg parental rponsibily do not provi an aquate level of protectn to lbians and gay men and the children they raise.

PARENTAL SENSIVY AND TSIVENS GAY-, LBIAN-, AND HETEROSEXUAL-PARENT FAI WH FANTS NCEIVED G ARTIFICIAL REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQU: DO PARENTS’ GENR AND REGIVER ROLE MATTER?

Fally, and relatedly, is plsible to assume that the ways which legal provisns allote parental rponsibily the absence of urt orrs alterg that allotn shape our perceptns about what unts as a legimate fay, by settg up some parentg nfiguratns as ‘flt’ article’s emphasis, then, is on the English and Atralian legal provisns, as affected by the 2008 reforms, that ern parent–child relatnships lbian and gay fai formed through means of non-al reproductn—provisns that are applible prr to, or the absence, of urt orrs alterg that allotn. In orr to terme the extent to which the law assists or hrs the parentg aspiratns of lbians and gay men, then, is necsary to exame who unts as a parent when children are nceived by lbians or gay men followg the e of non-al reproductn and how this parental stat relat to the ascriptn or acquisn of parental rponsibily, as well as the avenu for the acquisn of such rponsibily which are not pennt on the enjoyment of parental stat. Bee ss 36 and 43 do not exprsly require that the birth mother and the man or woman to be treated as the send parent be a relatnship, at first blh the provisns would appear to ter to the ls scripted parentg nfiguratns that lbians and gay men sometim form as they refe kship through choice (Wton 1991; Weeks et al.

CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARD ADOPTS SOCIAL STUDI TEXTBOOKS THAT CLU GAY RIGHTS AFTER WARNGS OM ERNOR

It seems signifint that the recent sympathy for lbian homonuclear fai exprsed the 2008 reforms should give way so soon to subsumg the terts of some such fai unr the fancial exigenci of the State (a major motive behd the birth registratn reforms beg the intifitn of fathers for the purpos of child support liabily)—and that the symbolism of the heterosexual nuclear fay should make s reappearance precisely at this pot (cf. It is also doubtful whether the reform has produced a nuanced system sensive to dividual circumstanc, or an unnecsarily plex one where distctns the mos of acquisn of parental rponsibily based on mor differenc relatnship stat lack a ratnal Lbian-Gay Co-Parentg ProjectsA donor-dad who has entered a -parentg project wh a lbian woman or uple do not have tomatic parental rponsibily, but he n acquire through a rince orr, as uld his partner (there is no lim to the number of people who may have parental rponsibily for a child through a rince orr). A -father a civil partnership wh a donor-dad th registered as the child’s father (or who has acquired parental stat and rponsibily the other manners tailed above) uld then acquire parental rponsibily the same way as a -mother who is a civil partner of the birth mother: by parental agreement (wh both the birth mother and the donor dad) or by urt upshot of this discsn is that a lbian-gay -parentg project n be brought to legal existence whout urt volvement only if s nucls replit a heteronormative ‘one (geic) father, one (birth) mother’ pattern, although provisn are ma for cludg the civil partners of the blogil parents whout need for urt volvement.

Note however that the latter would legally figure not as “parents” but rather as non-parents wh parental SurrogacyThe formatn of gay male-led fai followg the e of reproductive technologi, on the other hand, always requir urt volvement. This is bee surrogacy agreements (to which men tendg to create a gay male-led fay would have to rort) are unenforceable, Footnote 29 and while a donor-dad and his civil partner uld acquire, as we have seen, parental rponsibily by registratn and parental agreements rpectively (whout need to apply for urt orrs), the birth mother’s parental rponsibily uld not be validly termated by parental agreement.

The amendments go some way towards rectifyg the anomali and uncertati that had hherto characterised the regulatn of gay parentg Atralian feral origal drafters of s 60H had not envisaged s applitn to fai formed by lbians and gay men through means of non-al reproductn. Acrdgly, a NSW non-birth -mother, unlike her unterpart other Atralian jurisdictns, n qualify as a parent and enjoy parental rponsibily unr the Fay Law Act even when, at the time of the fertilisatn procre, she had not signified her nsent to the fertilisatn procre (such nsent not beg a prerequise to enterg her name the birth register) new regime may appear an unqualified good at least for lbian homonuclear fai where the nceptn was planned together. 143 and acpanyg text) Lbian-Gay Co-Parentg ProjectsAs is the se England, the law appears much ls willg to untenance lbian and gay fay forms that viate more signifintly om the heteronormative paradigm of two romantilly bond parents.

LBIAN AND GAY PARENTS AND REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGI: THE 2008 ATRALIAN AND UK REFORMS

We have already seen one way which the reformed s 60H disurag lbian-gay polyparentg projects: if the child is born to a lbian uple circumstanc where the -mother qualifi as a parent along wh the birth mother, then s 60H(1)(d) nclively prum that the sperm donor is not a parent.

TEACHERS FEAR THE CHILLG EFFECT OF FLORIDA'S SO-LLED 'DON'T SAY GAY' LAW

It is hard to quarrel wh the view that, on the basis of current lbian/gay fay patterns, where two-parent lbian fai predomate, would be appropriate to btow parental stat and rponsibily on sperm donors tomatilly at the child’s birth (Millbank 2007, pp. The law self—both through the support has tradnally provid to the heterosexual nuclear fay and through more recent provisns privilegg homonuclear fai among the newer fai—is partially, and perhaps largely, rponsible for shapg such preferenc and disuragg more imagative and operative fay forms.