The Jubilee Centre Blog

Father Unknown

John Hayward   Posted: 2 June 2010

Keywords: Sex & Families,

My daddy's name is DonorSince April 6th, unmarried couples and people in same sex relationships have been able to apply for Parental Orders allowing them to be treated as parents of children born using a surrogate mother.

In the past, birth certificates were perceived as representing a child's biological parenthood, even though they are actually legal documents recording the legal parentage of a child at birth. That they are not biological documents is evidenced, for instance, by the 50,000 British birth certificates on which the father's name is left blank each year and by the provision in the 2004 Gender Recognition Act for a person who has changed their gender to be issued with a new birth certificate reflecting their acquired gender and new name that is otherwise indistinguishable from their original birth certificate. However, with the growth of alternative family structures and an increasing demand for assisted reproduction treatments, the full implementation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 now means that an ever greater number of children will be faced with identity issues of increasing complexity as they grow up.

Incredibly, no systematic study has been conducted to consider what impact all these changes might have on the children affected. However, ground-breaking new research has been published this week assessing the impact of having no father recorded on a child's birth certificate.

The report My Daddy's Name is Donor compares the experience of adults aged 18 to 45 years old who were conceived via a sperm donation with that of those who were adopted as infants and those who were raised by their biological parents. Some of the most startling findings should cause us to reconsider the wisdom of the HFE Act 2008:

  • Donor offspring and those who were adopted are between 50 per cent more likely and twice as likely than those raised by their biological parents to struggle with serious, negative outcomes such as problems with the law, substance abuse, and mental health problems. For donor offspring of single mothers, this proportion rises to two and a half times more likely.
  • One in four donor offspring (25 per cent) strongly feels that nobody really understands them, compared with one in eight (13 per cent) of those adopted and one in eleven (nine per cent) of those raised by biological parents.
  • Nearly half of donor offspring (48 per cent) but less than a fifth of adopted adults (19 percent) admit to feeling sad when they see friends with their biological fathers and mothers.
  • Nearly half of donor offspring (46 per cent) but less than a fifth of adopted adults (17 per cent) and one in sixteen of those raised by their biological parents (6 per cent) has worried that they could be unknowingly related to someone to whom they are romantically attracted.

The authors of the report warn, 'the similarities between the struggles that adopted people and donor conceived people might share should prompt caution about intentionally denying children the possibility of growing up with their biological father or mother.'

'I write to you, dear children, because you have known the Father.' (1 John 2:13)

Comments

I've not read the report, I'll admit, but I'm trying to get my head around how exactly we might 'prompt caution about intentionally denying children the possibility of growing up with their biological father or mother' other than by ending assisted reproduction. If donor offspring have identity issues and twice as many negative outcomes, how else might these assuaged other than by denying life to those people in the first place? Or is that the point and, if so, isn't the 2008 HFE Act merely tackling the matters of discrimination and the registration of births?

Mick Haselden   2 June 2010

Tangled Webs, an Australian support group for donor conceived children would like donor conception to cease. They state, "To claim the right to a child is to claim jurisdiction over another human being's life when they have no say in the matter, when they have not given their consent, informed or otherwise. The fact that DC children cannot give consent because they are not yet alive is not an argument for putting their interests to one side; rather it is a powerful argument for ceasing the practice of DC altogether, or at the very least for being extremely careful about and limited in the ways we practice it."

It really is quite different to adoption (I speak as a woman married to an adoptee). Adoption is a child-centred act, meeting the need of an existing child for a family. Donor-conception begins with the adults' wishes and creates a child in complex circumstances to meet the desires of the adults.

Beth Micklethwaite   2 June 2010

Surely the 'jurisdiction' argument could be applied to anyone: children of parents who take drugs; are poor; are unmarried; are married but abusive; met once at a party; have low educational attainment; live in Haiti ...

Mick Haselden   2 June 2010

Comments

To comment on the above simply enter your details below and click 'submit your comment' to continue. Note that your email will only be used to inform you if someone replies to this comment.

Name

Email address

Your comment

Enter text as it appears on the right

Image Verification