The Legal Status of A Father In California: Alleged Father versus Presumed Father

In a recently decided California case, it was held where an alleged father signed an out-of-state voluntary acknowledgment of paternity in state where child was born, the juvenile court violated his constitutional rights to equal protection and full faith and credit principles by not recognizing him as a presumed father entitled to reunification services as a matter of right solely because declaration of parentage was executed out-of-state and not in California.

The Court further stated that an error was committed because the Court required alleged father to bring a Welfare and Institutions Code Sec. 388 petition and make a "best interest" showing to receive reunification services where mother at the commencement of the proceedings identified him as child’s father and advised the court there was an out-of-state paternity judgment and child support order, there was never any reunification period within which alleged father could have requested presumed father status because mother was denied reunification services, alleged father appeared and claimed presumed father status shortly after county agency located him and notified him of the proceedings, and his appearance was within the 12-month reunification period for a minor child’s age.

Furthermore, Notices under Indian Child Welfare Act were held to be inadequate where agency failed to advise court that it did not receive any response from a second notice to one of the tribes linked to father; and had sent notice to another tribe linked to father at the wrong address. See, In re Mary G.(filed May 24, 2007), For Full text: http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0507%2FD049027.

National Foster Care Month!

May is National Foster Care Month – a time to make a lasting difference in a child’s life. There are 513,000 American youth in foster care. No matter how much time you have to give, you can do something positive that will "change a lifetime" for a young person in foster care. For more information on how you can help, please visit www.fostercaremonth.org today.

The Creation of Human-Animal Embryos?

The creation of hybrid embryos for research appears to be getting support in England based on an article written by David Batty in today's Guardian Unlimited. According to the article, the British government has overturned its proposed ban on the creation of human-animal embryos, as it has proposed new legislation that would allow such embryos to be used to develop new treatments for incurable diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. "Based on the proposal, a new draft fertility bill would allow scientists to create three different types of hybrid embryos. Scientists would be allowed to grow the embryos in a lab for no more than two weeks, and it would be illegal to implant them in a human."

"The first kind of hybrid allowed under the bill, known as a chimeric embryo, is made by injecting cells from an animal into a human embryo. The second, known as a human transgenic embryo, involves injecting animal DNA into a human embryo. The third, known as a cytoplasmic hybrid, is created by transferring the nuclei of human cells, such as skin cells, into animal eggs from which almost all the genetic material has been removed. This is this type of human-animal embryo that is being developed in British universities. Scientists say that developing these embryos will provide a plentiful source of stem cells - immature cells that can develop into many different types of tissue - for use in medical research."

The new proposal would not allow the creation of "true hybrid" embryos, which would involve fertilization of a human egg with animal sperm or vice versa. Please see full article, "Hybrid embryos get go-ahead" by David Batty in the May 17, 2007, Guardian Unlimited.

Ireland Couple Battle Over Use of Frozen Embryos

A couple in Ireland are presently battling for control over three frozen embryos they conceived via IVF in 2001, according to lifesitenews.com. The couple did successfully have one child as a result of the IVF procedure. However, the couple are now at odds over who will control the remaining embryos frozen with the consent of both parents. The woman wants to have the three frozen embryos thawed and implanted even though her husband has withdrawn his consent. In Ireland, the clinic cannot release the embryos unless both parents consent.

Based on the article, "Ireland’s constitution currently guarantees the right to life of the unborn child." Therefore, "the Irish court may have to rule on whether or not an embryo is guaranteed the same right to life as an unborn child. Ireland has no legislation in place to govern human infertility treatments. IVF clinics are guided by the Medical Council’s code of ethics."

The legal rights of patients to control the use, transfer and disposition of cryopreserved genetic materials, which has been litigated in recent years in divorce and other cases, should be clearly stated in writing or in a written contract. Obvioulsy, there are a growing number of court decisions and on-going medical developments such as cryopreservation of gametes and embryos, in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer, and intracytoplasmic sperm injection that make it necessary for some type of legislation on assisted reproduction technology to be implemented in the United States.

For more information, please see the article on the couple disputing the disposition of their frozen embryos posted on www.lifesite.net.

EU Court Denies Woman Her Frozen Embryos After Partner Refuses Consent

According to an article recently posted on LifeSite.com and written by Gudrun Schultz, the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled against a woman who wanted to use her stored frozen embryos to have a baby of her own following a bout with cancer. The woman was left infertile after treatment for ovarian cancer. Her frozen embryos had been in storage with her partner’s consent. However, once the couple ended their relationship her partner withdrew consent for the embryos to be used in the future.

The woman’s lawyers argued under UK law that destruction of her six stored embryos would be a breach of her human rights.

“Under UK law, both the man and the woman must give consent for IVF procedures, and that consent can be withdrawn up until the time of implantation. There is a five-year limit on the storage of embryos after one partner withdraws consent, after which they must be destroyed.”

According to Schultz, the woman lost her case before both the UK Court of Appeals and the High Court, and she failed in her attempt to take the case before the House of Lords. "In what was a majority verdict, the UK court ruled it was her partner’s right to withdraw his consent and that his right to withdraw consent overrode the woman’s right to a family life, found in article eight of the European Convention of Human Rights."

The court also decided unanimously that the embryos did not have an independent right to life. To read more about the information contained in this article see www.lifesite.net.