Abstract
The decision to use certain terms was made in the interests of clarity in distinguishing between the various rights and interests of those who might be most profoundly affected by origin deprivation or created forms of legal relatedness. The concept of ‘the triad’ may be a highly contentious one for anyone who regards themselves as having unwillingly lost a child to adoption; it is a useful term however, for example in relation to analysing the various rights hierarchies that can arise post-adoption or gamete donation. The use of the term ‘birth mother’ also often provokes hurt and anger amongst that community; it will be used here as sparingly as possible, again in the interests of clarity and generally in the context of case law and policy, to highlight for example the consequences of having one’s genetic connections vetoed. Where any terms such as ‘real’, ‘natural’ or artificial’ are used in relation to parentage or conception these will be as quotations from cases or research on the issue of origin deprivation. The term ‘relinquished’ is used to represent the loss of genetic connection rather than to necessarily suggest that gently provided consents to adoption are necessarily the norm. Equally, the term ‘removed child’ appears at times, to acknowledge that substitute child care is often grounded in an acute need to achieve child protection and prevent abuse or neglect at the hands of natal family members.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
As a sealed-records Quebec adoptee I would make the suggestion that the prefix ‘birth’ should not necessarily be omitted from rights discourses on adoption and gamete donation. Despite the argument that its usage may reduce the role of genetic mothers (and fathers) to that of narrowly defined, biological input, the term does sharply underscore the unique nature of the losses that can occur where the blood-tie is removed or relinquished in respect of severing the profound connection between child, original parent and denying their shared heritage. Arguably, the notion of the ‘birthright’ is made more poignant by virtue of the ‘birth’ prefix, perhaps carrying a bit more weight in terms of persuading decision-makers that, in cases involving genetic ancestry and heritage, they are often tasked with protecting more than just a basic set of rights.
- 2.
A key assumption of this monograph is that a significant number of origin-deprived persons will probably, at some stage in their life, attempt to seek out some level of basic information on their genetic ancestry. On searching see further Lifton (1990), pp. 85–92; Carp (1998); Triseliotis (1985), pp. 19–24.
- 3.
Howell (2003), pp. 465–484.
- 4.
- 5.
See for example the United Kingdom, via The Adoption Act 1976 (as amended by S 60 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, enacted 30 December 2005) and Northern Ireland’s equivalent legislation, Article 54 of The Adoption (NI) Order 1987. Note however the power of veto which vests in the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, in respect of ordering the non-release of identifying information: see R v Registrar-General ex p Smith [1991] 2 QB 393 (Court of Appeal).
- 6.
See for example Re K [2002] NIFam 13; Re H [1981] 3 FLR 386.
- 7.
See Webster (The Parents) v Norfolk County Council & Ors (Rev 1) [2009] EWCA Civ 59.
- 8.
See for example Re P (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 499; Re H & A (Children) [2002] EWCA Civ 383.
- 9.
The triad refers here to the ‘triangle of relationships’ that exists or arises in respect of social kinship: genetic parents, social parents and adoptee or donor-gamete child. On the issue of using the term ‘triad’ see further http://motherhooddeleted.blogspot.com/2009/08/myth (accessed 01.02.12); http://bastardette.blogspot.com/2007/10/ethics (accessed 17.03.12); on ‘Respectful Adoption Language’ see further http://www.originscanada.org (accessed 02.02.11).
- 10.
See Baldassi (2004–2005), pp. 212–265.
- 11.
On the concept of rights versus ‘no-rights’ see further Hohfeld (1913), p. 16.
- 12.
See the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) Article 3 (1) which states that: ‘In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’ available at http://www2.ohchr.org/English/law/crc.html (accessed 21.07.011). Domestic provisions [such as Article 1(4) of Adoption and Children Act 2002 in England and Wales] frame the best interests of the child as ‘paramount’ rather than ‘primary’ however—see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts2002/ukpagea_20020038 (accessed 29.07.11).
- 13.
On the balancing exercise see further Herring (2003).
- 14.
The term ‘social kinship’ will be used here to refer to the non-genetic forms of relatedness, as created by law (e.g. adoption, Special Guardianship, marriage to a child’s mother) custom (de facto ‘indigenous’ adoption, kafalah) or through assisted reproductive technologies (gamete donation or surrogacy).
- 15.
See for example Odièvre v France [2003] 1 FLR 621; Frette v France [2004] 38 EHRR 21 (42); Re L [2007] EWHC 1771 (Fam) (20 July 2007); DeBoer v DeBoer 509 US 1301 [1995]; Baby Boy Richard v Kirchner 513 US 1138 [1995].
- 16.
See further Nelkin and Lindee (1995): WH Freeman, on the socio-cultural significance of ‘genetic essentialism’.
- 17.
Choudry (2003), p. 119.
- 18.
- 19.
A number of ‘kinning’ devices can be found within domestic property law in some common law regions (e.g. the ‘good conscience’ constructive trust based on good kinship behaviours, or promissory estoppel claims over familial legacies). See for example cases such as Re Johnson [2008] NI Ch 11; Little (Junior) v Maguire [2007] NI Ch 7; McKernan v McKernan [2006] NI Ch 6.
- 20.
Radcliffe-Brown (1952).
- 21.
- 22.
Goody (1973).
- 23.
- 24.
See for example Ortner and Whitehead (1981).
- 25.
Lepri (2005), pp. 703–724.
- 26.
Miall (1987), pp. 34–39 at p. 34.
- 27.
Hage (1999), p. 67.
- 28.
- 29.
Roesch-Rhomberg (2004), p. 83.
- 30.
Hargreaves (2006), pp. 261–283 at p. 279.
- 31.
- 32.
Carp (1998), p. viii.
- 33.
Carsten (2000), pp. 687–703 at p. 691.
- 34.
Some writers seem to express dislike for the term ‘adoptee’. See for example Trinder et al. (2004), p. 3 where it is suggested that the word tends to denote a ‘category rather than a person.’ If it is accepted that origin deprivation is a form of discriminatory treatment, the categorization of adopted persons as a uniquely disadvantaged group does not seem entirely inappropriate. The term also perhaps captures the degree of passivity that adopted persons might be subject to when entering the process, in terms of their not usually providing consent.
- 35.
Wegar (1997), pp. 97–118.
- 36.
Bowlby (1958), pp. 350–371.
- 37.
Goddard (1912). The text argued for the permanent institutionalization (rather than the adoption or fosterage) of illegitimate children within the United States. The subsequently discredited research apparently arose from Goddard’s ‘work’ with one of his female patients in the Training School for Backward and Feeble-Minded Children.
- 38.
Frisk (1964), p. 31.
- 39.
Erikson (1968).
- 40.
Sandler and Joffe (1969), pp. 585–595.
- 41.
Rogers (1961).
- 42.
Lifton (1990), pp. 85–92.
- 43.
Melosh (2002), p. 2.
- 44.
Ryburn (1995), pp. 41–64 at p. 42.
- 45.
Sants (1964), pp. 133–141.
- 46.
Yngvesson and Mahoney (2000), pp. 77–110 at p. 79.
- 47.
Antze and Lambeck (1996).
- 48.
See for example Schechter (1960), p. 21.
- 49.
See for example Wellisch (1952), p. 41 who observed that identification with one’s relatives was often easier where there was some degree of physical resemblance. He suggested that, as a result, adoption might be better suited to orphans.
- 50.
Wegar (1997).
- 51.
- 52.
See for example Spencer (1979), p. 450 who argued that terms such as ‘natural mother’ seek to remove any recognition of relatedness between parent and adopted child. She advocated instead the use of ‘emotionally correct’ words.
- 53.
See Triseliotis (1973).
- 54.
Eriksen (2004), pp. 49–62 at p. 49.
- 55.
- 56.
See Franck (1996), pp. 359–383 at p. 359.
- 57.
- 58.
- 59.
See for example Articles 16 (1) (a) and 30 (1) of The Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption (1993) (‘Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption’) available at http://hcch.e-vision.nl/upload/outline33e.pdf accessed 13.07.11.
- 60.
See for example The European Convention on Nationality (1997) (ETS No 166) (‘The Nationality Convention’) available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Word/166.doc accessed 20.07.11.
- 61.
See for example Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) (‘ECHR’) available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm#FN1 accessed 01.06.11.
- 62.
See Article 27 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) (‘ICCPR’) available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm accessed 30.07.11. On the issue of international legal and customary norms of non-discrimination and the duty upon states to protect the ‘cultural integrity’ of individuals and groups see also Anaya (2000), pp. 97–103.
- 63.
See for example Article 2 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) which states that ‘Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.’ See also Article 25 (2) which stresses that ‘Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.’ Available at http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml accessed 10.07.11.
- 64.
See Article 3 (1) of The United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child (1989) (‘The Children’s Convention’) which states that: ‘In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.’ Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/English/law/crc.html accessed 21.07.11.
- 65.
- 66.
McCarthy (2004), pp. 1–32 at p. 1.
- 67.
See Baldassi (2004–2005), pp. 212–265; see also Kelly v Superintendent of Child Welfare and Williams (1980) 23 BCLR 299 (SC); Re Adoption of BA (1980) 17 RFL (2d) 140 (Man Co Ct) where ‘identity issues’ were insufficient to open sealed birth records. See however by way of contrast Ross v PEI (Supreme Court, Family Division, Registrar) (1985) 56 Nfld & PEIR 248 [1985] PEIJ No 1 (PEISC) (QL).
- 68.
Similarly, if a positive obligation to prevent origin deprivation were found to exist in human rights law, possibly as a type of cultural property right (e.g. in preventing cultural assimilation) then arguably such a duty could, in theory at least, be framed as perhaps akin to those peremptory norms that attach to the protection of Native status and title. See further Merry (1997), p. 31; Samson (2001), pp. 226–248.
- 69.
See also Alston (1984), pp. 607–615. See also The International Declaration on Human Genetic Data (2003) Article 3 which states that ‘Each individual has a characteristic genetic make-up. Nevertheless, a person’s identity should not be reduced to genetic characteristics, since it involves complex educational, environmental and personal factors and emotional, social, spiritual and cultural bonds with others and implies a dimension of freedom.’
- 70.
Especially that generated in connection with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
- 71.
See Herring (2003).
- 72.
See for example Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (2010) [GC], no. 41615/07 ECHR; Y C v United Kingdom (2012) (App 4547/10) ECHRR; R and H v United Kingdom (2011) 54 EHRR 28.
- 73.
See for example Kearns v France ECHR 10 January 2008 (Application no 35991/04); S.H. And Others v. Austria—57813/00 [2011] ECHR 1878 (3 November 2011); Ahrens v Germany (App 45071/09) ECHRR (22 March 2012).
- 74.
Odièvre v France [2003] 1 FLR 621 (App no 6833/74) Dissenting Opinion at para 7, per Judges Wildhaber, Sir Nicolas Bratza, Bonello, Loucaides, Cabral Bonetto, Tulknes and Pellonpää.
- 75.
See for example Marckx v Belgium (1979) (application no 6833/74) (1979); P C and S v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1075; Anayo v Germany [2010] ECHR 2083 (21 December).
- 76.
See for example Neulinger and Shuruk v Switzerland (2010) [GC] app no 41615/07.
- 77.
See for example R and H v United Kingdom (2011) 35348/06 ECHR 844; Y C v United Kingdom (2012) (App 4547/10) ECHRR.
- 78.
Pratten v British Columbia (Attorney General) [2012] BCCA 480.
- 79.
See also The UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL] 2007–2008 Part 2 and Schedule 6, on the proposed changes to the legal definition of parenthood, available http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm2007C accessed 15.10.2011; see also The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.
- 80.
- 81.
- 82.
Re G [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam) Here, a sperm donor father (who had originally been friends with the child’s lesbian parents) sought the leave of the Court to make an application for contact with the child.
- 83.
A v P [2011] EWHC 1738 (Fam) para 26.
- 84.
M.R & Anor -v- An tArd Chlaraitheoir & Ors [2013] IEHC 91.
- 85.
See for example RE TMH [2009] NIFam 11; Re EFB [2009] NIFam 7. See also Section 1 Children Act 1989; Article 3 Children (NI) Order 1995 on the ‘make no Order’ principle. Adoption practice in the region came in for considerable criticism in Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust v H [2006] UKHL 36 (see the dissenting Opinion of Baroness Hale LJ). On Freeing Orders and delays See further Kelly and McSherry (2003), Kelly and McSherry (2002), pp. 297–309; ‘Adopting the Future’ Consultation Report Responses (2006) DHSSPS available http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/adopting-the-future-consultation-report-final-2.pdf (accessed 05.10.11).
- 86.
Re A [2001] NIFam 23 per Gillen LJ.
- 87.
See SEHSST v LS [2009] NIFam 14; and Re JJ [2009] NIFam 2.
- 88.
See Re NI and NS [2001] NIFam 7 (24 March 2001). Contact often takes the form of indirect methods such as ‘letter-box’ contact; it may also be restricted to a few instances per year, conditional upon natal kin not having a disruptive effect upon the placement. See Re EFB [2009] NIFam 7.
- 89.
- 90.
Webster (The Parents) v Norfolk County Council & Ors (Rev 1) [2009] EWCA Civ 59 (11 February 2009).
- 91.
See for example Re P (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 499.
- 92.
See Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust v H [2006] UKHL 36. The use of ‘Freeing Orders’, and the lack of kin contact pending adoptive placement was particularly criticized.
- 93.
See for example Re J and S (2001) NIFam 13 (23 May 2001); Re CBCHSST v JKF [2000] NIFam 76.
- 94.
See for example Re Bridget R et al (Minors) (1995) BO93520.
- 95.
See for example In Re BGC (1992) 496 NW 2d 239 (Iowa).
- 96.
N & Anor v Health Service Executive & Ors [2006] IESC 60.
- 97.
- 98.
In Re Bridget R et al, Minors (1995) 25 USCA 1901 op cit at n 22.
- 99.
Hollinger (1988–1989), pp. 451–501.
- 100.
Ibid p. 453.
- 101.
Bakeis (1996).
- 102.
See further Hazeltine (2002), pp. 58–84.
- 103.
N & Anor v Health Service Executive & Ors [2006] IESC 60, wherein a ‘voluntarily relinquished’ child had lived with her prospective adopters for several years. The case turned not on the issue of her best interests but on the Constitutional rights of her birth parents to avoid State interference with their right to family life.
- 104.
1. The fundamental right to an authentic, ancestral identity is often a key component of child-welfare led best interests and the right to family and private life. 2. In terms of realising the right to identity, the best interests of the child may be closely tied to such issues as contact, ‘potentiality’ of relatedness or relationship, or to procedural matters such as passage of time. 3. The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. 4. The best interests of the child may require informational disclosure given the significance of the genetic connection and that a positive, juridical obligation to preserve or repair this connection exists. 5. Loss of genetic connection ought to occur only in exceptional circumstances. 6. Preserving genetic connections should not compromise the principle of child welfare paramountcy.
- 105.
The rule in R v Registrar-General ex p Smith [1991] 2 QB 393 (Court of Appeal) notwithstanding.
- 106.
Melosh (2002), p. 2.
References
Aginsky, B. W. (1935). The mechanics of kinship. American Anthropologist, 37(3), 450–457.
Alston, P. (1984). Conjuring up new human rights: A proposal for quality control? American Journal of International Law, 78, 607–615.
Anaya, S. J. (2000). Indigenous peoples in international law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Antze, P., & Lambeck, M. (1996). Tense past: Cultural essays in trauma and memory. London: Routledge.
Bainham, A. (2007). Permanence for children: Special guardianship or adoption? Cambridge Law Journal, 66(3), 520–523.
Bakeis, C. D. (1996). The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978: violating personal rights for the sake of the tribe. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy 10, 543, 569.
Baldassi, C. L. (2004–2005). The quest to access closed adoption files in Canada: Understanding social context and legal resistance to change. Canadian Journal of Family Law, 21, 212–265.
Berg, A. (2003). Ancestor reverence and mental health in South Africa. Transcultural Psychiatry, 40(2), 194–207.
Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 39, 350–371.
Braude, P., Johnson, M., & Aiken, R. (1990). The human fertilisation and embryology bill goes to report stage. British Medical Journal, 300, 1410–1412.
Bremmer, J. (1999). Fosterage, kinship and the circulation of children in Ancient Greece. Hellenic Studies Review, 6, 1–20.
Carp, E. W. (1998). Family matters: Secrecy and disclosure in the history of adoption. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Carsten, J. (2000). ‘Knowing where you’ve come from’: Ruptures and continuities of time and kinship in narratives of adoption reunions. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (NS), 6, 687–703.
Carsten, J. (2004). After kinship: New departures in anthropology. Boston: Cambridge University Press.
Choudry, S. (2003). The Adoption and Children Act 2002: The Welfare Principle and The Human Rights Act 1998 – A missed opportunity? Child and Family Law Quarterly, 15(2), 119.
Crawford, S. J. (2000). (Re) constructing bodies: Semiotic sovereignty and the debate over Kenniwick Man. In D. A. Mihesuah (Ed.), Repatriation reader: Who owns American Indian Remains? Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Eekelaar, J. (2006). Family law and personal life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eriksen, T. H. (2004). Place, kinship and the case for non-ethnic nations. Nations and Nationalism, 10(1/2), 49–62.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1951). Kinship and marriage among the Nuer. London: Oxford University Press.
Franck, T. (1996). Clan and superclan: Loyalty, identity and community in law and practice. American Journal of International Law, 90, 359–383.
Franklin, S. (2003). Re-thinking nature-culture: Anthropology and the new genetics. Anthropological Theory, 3, 65–85.
Frisk, M. (1964). Identity problems and confused conceptions of the genetic ego of adopted children during adolescence. Acta Paedo Psychiatrica, 31, 6–12.
Goddard, H. (1912). The Kallikak family: A study in the heredity of feeble-mindedness. New York: Macmillan.
Goody, J. R. (Ed.). (1973). The character of kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grace, V. M. (2008). The psychosocial politics of paternity in the case of male donated gametes. Women’s Studies International Forum, 31, 257–262.
Grace, V. M., Daniels, K. R., & Gillet, W. (2008). The donor, the father, and the imaginary constitution of the family: Parents’ constructions in the case of donor insemination. Social Science & Medicine, 66, 301–314.
Hage, P. (1999). The Arapesh atom of kinship feeding ties versus blood-ties. Journal of Law and Family Studies, 1, 67.
Hargreaves, K. (2006). Constructing families and kinship through donor insemination. Sociology of Health & Illness, 28(3), 261–283.
Hazeltine, S. L. (2002). Speedy termination of Alaska native parental rights: The 1998 changes to Alaska’s child in need of aid statutes and their inherent conflict with the mandates of the Federal Indian Child Welfare Act. Alaska Law Review, 19, 58–84.
Herring, J. (2003). Connecting contact: Contact in a private law context. In A. Bainham et al. (Eds.), Children and their families: Contact, rights and welfare. London: Hart.
Hohfeld, W. (1913). Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal, 23, 16.
Hollinger, J. H. (1988–1989). Beyond the best interests of the tribe: The Indian Child Welfare Act and the Adoption of Indian Children. University of Detroit Law Review, 66, 451–501.
Howell, S. (2003). Kinning: The creation of life trajectories in transnational adoptive families. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 9, 465–484.
Jackson, H. H. (2003). A century of dishonor: The classic exposé of the plight of the native Americans. Mineola: Dover Publications Inc.
Kellmer-Pringle, M. L. (1967). Adoption: Facts and fallacies. London: Longmans.
Kelly, G., & McSherry, D. (2002). Adoption from care in Northern Ireland: Problems in the process. Child and Family Social Work, 7, 297–309.
Kelly, G., & McSherry, D. (2003). Review of the freeing order processes in Northern Ireland. Belfast: DHSS Report.
Kenna, M. (2001). Greek Island life: Fieldwork on Anafi. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
Kirby, P., & Bryson, S. (2002). Measuring the magic? Evaluating and researching young people’s participation in public decision-making. London: Carnegie Young People Initiative.
Kornitzer, M. (1959). Adoption. London: Putnam.
Lepri, I. (2005). The meanings of kinship among the Ese Ejja of Northern Bolivia. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (NS), 11, 703–724.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1949). The elementary structures of kinship. Boston: Beacon.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
Levy-Shiff, R. (2001). Psychological adjustment of adoptees in adulthood: Family environment and adoption-related correlates. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 97–104.
Lifton, B. J. (1990). The formation of the adopted self. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 8, 85–92.
McCarthy, P. (2004). Making the most of international law on the right to identity: An analysis of article 8 of the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child. Cork Online Law Review, 3, 1–32.
Meier, P. J., & Zhang, X. (2008–2009). Sold into adoption: The Hunan Baby trafficking scandal exposes vulnerabilities in Chinese adoptions to the United States. Cumberland Law Review, 39, 87–130.
Melosh, B. (2002). Strangers and kin: The American way of adoption. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Merry, S. E. (1997). Changing rights, changing culture. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Human rights, culture and context- anthropological perspectives. New York: Pluto Press.
Miall, C. E. (1987). The stigma of adoptive parent status: Perceptions of community attitudes toward adoption and the experience of informal social sanctioning. Family Relations, 36(1), 34–39.
Morgan, L. H. (1871). Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. Washington DC: Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge. Anthrop Publ. (1970).
Morgan, L. H. (1877). Ancient society. London: MacMillan and Co.
Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure. New York: Macmillan.
Nelkin, D., & Lindee, S. (1995). The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York: W H Freeman.
Ortner, S. B., & Whitehead, H. (Eds.). (1981). Sexual meanings: The cultural construction of gender and sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pasternak, B. (1976). Introduction to kinship and social organization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. (1952). Structure and function in primitive society. London and Henley: Routledge and Kegan.
Roesch-Rhomberg, I. (2004). Korean institutionalised adoption. In F. Bowie (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to adoption. London: Routledge.
Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Ryburn, M. (1995). Adopted children’s identity and information needs. Children and Society, 9(3), 41–64.
Samson, C. (2001). Rights as the reward for simulated cultural sameness: The Innu in the Canadian colonial context. In J. K. Cowan et al. (Eds.), Culture and rights – anthropological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sandler, J., & Joffe, W. G. (1969). Towards a basic psychoanalytic model: The theory of parent–infant relationship. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 41, 585–595.
Sants, H. J. (1964). Genealogical bewilderment in children with substitute parents. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 37, 133–141.
Schechter, M. (1960). Observations on adopted children. Archives of General Psychiatry, 3, 21.
Sinclair, R. (2004). Participation in practice: Making it meaningful, effective and sustainable. Children and Society, 18, 106–118.
Sinclair, R., & Franklin, A. (2000). Young people’s participation: Quality protects research briefing no 3. London: Dept of Health.
Smith, A. D. (1986). The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Smith, A. D. (1991). National identity. London: Harmondsworth, Penguin.
Smith, A. D. (1998). Nationalism and modernism. London: Routledge.
Smolin, D. M. (2009–2010). Child laundering and the Hague Convention on intercountry adoption: The future and past of intercountry adoption. University of Louisville Law Review, 48, 441.
Spencer, M. (1979). The terminology of adoption. Washington: Child Welfare League of America.
Talbot, G., & Kidd, P. (2004). Special guardianship orders-issues in respect of family assessment. Family Law Journal, 34, 273.
Trinder, L., Feast, J., & Howe, D. (2004). The adoption reunion handbook. London: Wiley.
Triseliotis, J. (1973). In search of origins: The experiences of adopted people. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Triseliotis, J. (1985). Adoption with contact. Adoption and Fostering, 9(4), 19–24.
Walker, I., & Broderick, P. (1999). The psychology of assisted reproduction-or psychology assisting its reproduction? Australian Psychologist, 34, 38–44.
Wegar, W. (1997). Adoption, identity and kinship: The debate over sealed birth records (pp. 97–118). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wellisch, K. E. (1952). Children without genealogy – A problem of adoption. Mental Health, 12, 41.
Yngvesson, B., & Mahoney, M. A. (2000). ‘As One Should, Ought And Wants To Be’: Belonging and authenticity in identity narratives’. Theory Culture and Society, 17, 77–110.
Cases
United Kingdom
A v P [2011] EWHC 1738 (Fam)
Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust v H [2006] UKHL 36
Little (Junior) v Maguire [2007] NI Ch 7
McKernan v McKernan [2006] NI Ch 6
R v Registrar-General ex p Smith [1991] 2 QB 393
Re A [2001] NIFam 23
Re CBCHSST v JKF [2000] NIFam 76
Re EFB [2009] NIFam 7
Re G [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam)
Re H & A (Children) [2002] EWCA Civ 383
Re H [1981] 3 FLR 386
Re J and S (2001) NIFam 13 (23 May 2001)
Re JJ [2009] NIFam 2
Re Johnson [2008] NI Ch 11
Re K [2002] NIFam Re L [2007] EWHC 1771 (Fam)
Re NI and NS [2001] NIFam 7
Re P (A Child) [2008] EWCA Civ 499
RE TMH [2009] NIFam 11
SEHSST v LS [2009] NIFam 14
Webster (The Parents) v Norfolk County Council & Ors (Rev 1) [2009] EWCA Civ 59
European Court of Human Rights
Ahrens v Germany (App 45071/09) ECHRR (22 March 2012)
Anayo v Germany [2010] ECHR 2083 (21 December)
Frette v France [2004] 38 EHRR 21 (42)
Kearns v France ECHR 10 January 2008 (Application no 35991/04)
Marckx v Belgium (1979) (application no 6833/74) (1979)
Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (2010) [GC], no. 41615/07 ECHR
Odièvre v France [2003] 1 FLR 621 (App no 6833/74)
P C and S v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1075
R and H v United Kingdom (2011) 54 EHRR 28
S.H. And Others v. Austria - 57813/00 [2011] ECHR 1878 (3 November 2011)
Y C v United Kingdom (2012) (App 4547/10) ECHRR
Ireland
M.R & Anor -v- An tArd Chlaraitheoir & Ors [2013] IEHC 91
N & Anor v Health Service Executive & Ors [2006] IESC 60
United States/Canada
Baby Boy Richard v Kirchner 513 US 1138 [1995]
DeBoer v DeBoer 509 US 1301 [1995]
In Re BGC (1992) 496 NW 2d 239 (Iowa)
In Re Bridget R et al, Minors (1995) 25 USCA 1901
Kelly v Superintendent of Child Welfare and Williams (1980) 23 BCLR 299 (SC)
N & Anor v Health Service Executive & Ors [2006] IESC 60
Re Adoption of BA (1980) 17 RFL (2d) 140 (Man Co Ct)
Ross v PEI (Supreme Court, Family Division, Registrar) (1985) 56 Nfld & PEIR 248 [1985] PEIJ No 1 (PEISC) (QL)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Diver, A. (2014). Introduction. In: A Law of Blood-ties - The 'Right' to Access Genetic Ancestry. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01071-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01071-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01070-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01071-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)