Top

Journal of Child and Family Studies

Gepubliceerd in:

21-09-2019 | Original Paper

Mapping French People’s Positions Regarding the Children’s Right to Know their Biological Parents’ Identity

Auteurs: Mathilde Nacher, Maria Teresa Muñoz Sastre, Lonzozou Kpanake, Etienne Mullet

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Child and Family Studies | Uitgave 6/2020

Abstract

Objectives

The study aimed at mapping in a detailed way French lay people’s positions on the disclosure of information that makes possible the tracing of their biological origins for adoptees and for donor conceived persons.

Method

A convenience sample of 151 adults was presented with a set of 20 vignettes that depicted the situation of teenagers (1) who recently learned that one or both of their parents were not their biological parents, (2) who wished to have information about biological parents, and (3) who were denied access to information because of legal dispositions in the country. Participants were asked to judge the extent to which the denial of access to information was defensible. The factors introduced in the vignettes were the teenagers’ age and motives (e.g., an 18-year old boy who was suffering from a genetic illness), and the filiation link (e.g., conceived through sperm donation).

Results

Through cluster analysis, four qualitatively different positions were found: Never Defensible (16% of participants), Not Very Defensible (42%), Depends on Circumstances (13%), and Almost Always Defensible (29%).

Conclusions

The difference in importance that participants in this study attributed to blood filiation – whether it was essential to know about it or not – is reminiscent of the more general opposition between two legal principles regarding the way nationality is conferred: jus sanguinis (right of blood, which applies in England or Germany) versus jus soli (right of soil, which applies in France).

vorige artikel Perceptions of Evidence-based Treatment among Youth and Caregivers Receiving Trauma Focused-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

volgende artikel Pathways to Self-Stigma in Parents of Children with a Mental Health Disorder

American Adoption Congress (1979). Resolution. Washington, DC: American Adoption Congress.

Anderson, N. H. (2008). Unified social cognition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Anderson, N. H. (2019). Moral science. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Baetens, P., Devroey, P., Camus, M., Van Steirteghem, A., & Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I. (2000). Counselling couples and donors for oocyte donation: the decision to use either known or anonymous oocytes. Human Reproduction, 15(2), 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/15.2.476.CrossRefPubMed

Brewaeys, A., de Bruyn, J. K., Louwe, L. A., & Helmerhorst, F. M. (2005). Anonymous or identity-registered sperm donors? A study of Dutch recipients’ choices. Human Reproduction, 20(3), 820–824. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh708.CrossRefPubMed

Cahn, N. (2014). Do tell! The rights of donor-conceived offspring. Hofstra Law Review, 42, 1077–1124.

Child Welfare Information Gateway (2009). Postadoption contact agreements between birth and adoptive families: summary of state law. Washington, DC: Child Welfare Information Gateway.

Clapton, G. (2018). Close relations? The long-term outcomes of adoption reunions. Genealogy, 2(41). https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy2040041.

Committee of the Rights of the Child (2016). Concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of France. United Nations, New York, NY: Committee of the Rights of the Child, United Nations.

Crawshaw, M. (2008). Prospective parents’ intentions regarding disclosure following the removal of donor anonymity. Human Fertility, 11(3), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647270701694282.CrossRefPubMed

Crawshaw, M., Daniels, K., Adams, D., Bourne, K., van Hooff, J. A. P., Kramer, W., Pasch, L., & Thorn, P. (2016). Emerging models for facilitating contact between people genetically related through donor conception: a preliminary analysis and discussion. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 1, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2015.10.001.CrossRef

Cushing, A. (2010). I just want more information about who I am: the search experience of sperm-donor offspring, searching for information about their donors and genetic heritage. Information Research, 15(2). http://InformationR.net/ir/415-422/paper428.html.

Freeman, T., Bourne, K., Jadva, V., & Smith, V. (2014). Making connections: contact between sperm donor relations. In T. Freeman, S. Graham, F. Ebtehaj & M. Richards (Eds.), Relatedness in assisted reproduction: Families, origins and identities (pp. 270–295). Cambrigde: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Freeman, T., Zadeh, S., Smith, V., & Golombok, S. (2016). Disclosure of sperm donation: a comparison between solo mother and two-parent families with identifiable donors. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 33, 592–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.08.004.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Glennon, T. (2016). Legal regulation of family creation through gamete donation: access, identity and parentage. In S. Golombok & S. Wilkinson (Eds.), Regulating reproductive donation (pp. 60–83). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Golombok, S., Blake, L., Casey, P., Roman, G., & Jadva, V. (2013). Children born through reproductive donation: a longitudinal study of psychological adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 54(6), 653–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12015.CrossRefPubMed

Grotevant, H. D., & von Korff, L. (2011). Adoptive identity. In S. Schwartz, K. Luyckx & V. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 585–601). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef

Harper, J. C., Kennett, D., & Reisel, D. (2016). The end of donor anonymity: how genetic testing is likely to drive anonymous gamete donation out of business. Human Reproduction, 31(6), 1135–1140. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew065.CrossRefPubMed

Hofmans, J., & Mullet, E. (2013). Towards unveiling individual differences in different stages of information processing: a clustering-based approach. Quality and Quantity, 47, 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9529-7.CrossRef

Howe, D., & Feast, J. (2000). Adoption, search and reunion: the long term experience of adopted adults. London: The Children’s Society.

Ilioi, E. C., & Golombok, S. (2015). Psychological adjustment in adolescents conceived by assisted reproduction techniques: a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update, 21(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu051.CrossRefPubMed

Indekeu, A., Dierickx, K., Schotsmans, P., Daniels, K. R., Rober, P., & D'Hooghe, T. (2013). Factors contributing to parental decision-making in disclosing donor conception: a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update, 19(6), 714–733. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt018.CrossRefPubMed

Indekeu, A., D’Hooghe, T., Daniels, K. R., Dierickx, K., & Rober, P. (2014). When ‘sperm’ becomes ‘donor’: transitions in parents’ views of the sperm donor. Human Fertility, 17(4), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647273.2014.910872.CrossRefPubMed

Isaksson, S., Skoog Svanberg, A., Sydsjo, G., Thurin-Kjellberg, A., Karlstrom, P. O., Solensten, N. G., & Lampic, C. (2011). Two decades after legislation on identifiable donors in Sweden: are recipient couples ready to be open about using gamete donation. Human Reproduction, 26(4), 853–860. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq365.CrossRefPubMed

Isaksson, S., Sydsjo, G., Skoog Svanberg, A., & Lampic, C. (2012). Disclosure behaviour and intentions among 111 couples following treatment with oocytes or sperm from identity-release donors: follow-up at offspring age 1–4 years. Human Reproduction, 27(10), 2998–3007. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des285.CrossRefPubMed

Isaksson, S., Sydsjö, G., Skoog Svanberg, A., & Lampic, C. (2014). Preferences and needs regarding future contact with donation offspring among identity-release gamete donors: results from the Swedish Study on Gamete Donation. Fertility and Sterility, 102(4), 1160–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.06.038.CrossRefPubMed

Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2011). Sperm and oocyte donors’ experiences of anonymous donation and subsequent contact with their donor offspring. Human Reproduction, 26(3), 638–646. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq364.CrossRefPubMed

Kalampalikis, N., Doumergue, M., & Zadeh, S., French Federation of CECOS. (2018). Sperm donor regulation and disclosure intentions: results from a nationwide multi-centre study in France. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 5, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.02.001.CrossRef

Kenney, N. J., & McGowan, M. L. (2010). Looking back: oocyte donors’ retrospective evaluations of their motivations, expectations, and experiences during their first donation cycle. Fertility and Sterility, 93(2), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.081.E.CrossRefPubMed

Kirkman, M., Rosenthal, D., & Johnson, L. (2007). Families working it out: adolescents' views on communicating about donor-assisted conception. Human Reproduction, 22(8), 2318–2324. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem138.CrossRefPubMed

Klotz, M. (2016). Wayward relations: novel searches of the donor conceived for genetic kinship. Medical Anthropology, 35(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2015.1012615.CrossRefPubMed

Kpanake, L., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2018). Disclosing fathers’ HIV infection to their sons in Togo. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27, 3618–3626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1187-0.CrossRef

Kramer, W., & Cahn, N. (2013). Finding our families: a first-of-its-kind book for donor-conceived people and their families. New York, NY: Penguin.

Lalos, A., Gottlieb, C., & Lalos, O. (2007). Legislated right for donor-insemination children to know their origin: a study of parental thinking. Human Reproduction, 22(6), 1759–1768. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem063.CrossRefPubMed

Lassalzede, T., Paci, M., Rouzier, J., Carez, S., Gnisci, A., Saias-Magnan, J., Deveze, C., Perrin, J., & Metzler-Guillemain, C. (2017). Sperm donor conception and disclosure to children: a 10-year retrospective follow-up study of parental attitudes in one French center for the study and preservation of eggs and sperm (CECOS). Fertility and Sterility, 108(2), 247–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.001.CrossRefPubMed

Legifrance (2002). Article L.511-10 du Code Pénal. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006070719&idArticle=LEGIARTI000006418897&dateTexte=&categorieLien=cid.

Legifrance (2011). Loi 2011-814 relative à la bioéthique. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000024323102&categorieLien=id.

Legislation Government United Kingdom (1976). Adoption act 1976. London, England: Legislation Government United Kingdom.

Mignot, J. F. (2017). Full adoption in England and Wales, and France: a comparative history of law and practice (1926–2015). Adoption and Fostering, 34, 87–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308575917704551.CrossRef

Muñoz Sastre, M. T., Petitfils, C., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2015). A mapping of the positions of adults in Toulouse, France, regarding induced abortion. European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care, 20, 158–169. https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2014.971741.CrossRefPubMed

Muñoz Sastre, M. T., Sorum, P. C., & Mullet, E. (2016). The acceptability of assisted reproductive technology among French lay people. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 34, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/02646838.2016.1188279.CrossRef

Pajot, E., Nacher, M., Muñoz Sastre, M. T., & Mullet, E. (2015). Mapping people’s views regarding childbearing among people with learning difficulties. Sexuality & Disability, 33(4), 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11195-015-9420-x.CrossRef

Ravitsky, V. (2010). Knowing where you come from: the rights of donor-conceived individuals and the meaning of genetic relatedness. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 11(2), 655–684. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mjlst/vol11/iss2/9

Ravitsky, V. (2017). The right to know one’s genetic origins and cross-border medically assisted reproduction. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-016-0125-0.

Robinson, E. B. (2005). Adoption and loss: the hidden grief. London: Clova.

Sälevaara, M., Suikkari, A. M., & Söderström-Anttila, V. (2013). Attitudes and disclosure decisions of Finnish parents with children conceived using donor sperm. Human Reproduction, 28(10), 2746–2754. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det313.CrossRefPubMed

Scheib, J. E., Riordan, M., & Rubin, S. (2005). Adolescents with open-identity sperm donors: reports from 12-17 year olds. Human Reproduction, 20(1), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh581.CrossRefPubMed

Scheib, J. E., Ruby, A., & Benward, J. (2017). Who requests their sperm donor's identity? The first ten years of information releases to adults with open-identity donors. Fertility and Sterility, 107(2), 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deg227.CrossRefPubMed

Slutsky, J., Jadva, V., Freeman, T., Persaud, S., Steele, M., Steele, H., Kramer, W., & Golombok, S. (2016). Integrating donor conception into identity development: adolescents in fatherless families. Fertility and Sterility, 106(1), 202–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.033.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2017). Citizenship. Stanford, CA: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Turner, A. J., & Coyle, A. (2000). What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experiences of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implications for counselling and therapy. Human Reproduction, 15(9), 2041–2051. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/15.9.2041.CrossRefPubMed

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Convention. United Nations, New York, NY: UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

von Korff, L., & Grotevant, H. D. (2011). Contact in adoption and adoptive identity formation: the mediating role of family conversation. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(3), 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023388.CrossRefPubMedCentral

van den Broeck, U., Vandermeeren, M., Vanderschueren, D., Enzlin, P., Demyttenaere, K., & D’Hooghe, T. (2013). A systematic review of sperm donors: demographic characteristics, attitudes, motives and experiences of the process of sperm donation. Human Reproduction Update, 19(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms039.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Mapping French People’s Positions Regarding the Children’s Right to Know their Biological Parents’ Identity
Auteurs: Mathilde Nacher
Maria Teresa Muñoz Sastre
Lonzozou Kpanake
Etienne Mullet
Publicatiedatum: 21-09-2019
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Child and Family Studies / Uitgave 6/2020
Print ISSN: 1062-1024
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2843
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01563-w

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Objectives

Method

Results

Conclusions

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 6/2020

Exploring the Links between Facets of Mindfulness and Parenting Efficacy and Stress

The Mediating Effect of Empathy on the Relation Between Child Self-Expressiveness in Family and Prosocial Behaviors

Experienced Severity of Imprisonment Among Fathers and Non-Fathers

Time-Varying Outcomes Associated With Maternal Age at First Birth

Parents’ Impact on Children’s School Performance: Marital Satisfaction, Parental Involvement, and Mental Health

Real-world Outcomes of PCIT for Children at Risk of Autism or Developmental Delay