In this article, the authors analyze appellate court cases heard in California between 1960 and 2000 that focus on the status of children conceived through reproductive technology in an effort to examine the role of the courts in defining parentage and family in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. In the absence of legislation, the primary locus of family policy regarding children created via reproductive technology will continue to be the courts.
Adoption of Matthew B., 232 Cal. App. 3d 1239 (1991).
2.
Andrews, L. (1992, October). Surrogacy wars: A scoreboard. California Lawyer, pp. 50-60.
3.
Annas, G. J. (2000a). The shadowlands: The regulation of human reproduction in the United States. In S. N. Katz, J. Eekelaar, & M. Maclean (Eds.), Cross currents: Family law and policy in the United States and England (pp.143-164). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
4.
Annas, G. J. (2000b). Ulysses and the fate of frozen embryos: Reproduction, research, or destruction?New England Journal of Medicine, 343, 373-376.
5.
Apple, R. D., & Golden, J. (Eds.). (1997). Mothers and motherhood: Readings in American history. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
6.
Bogenschneider, K. (2000). Has family policy come of age? A decade review of the state of U.S. family policy in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1136-1159.
7.
Boss, P. G. (1988). Family stress management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
8.
Brill, L. A. (1999). When will the law catch up?Catholic Lawyer, 39, 241-268.
9.
Bubolz, M. M., & Sontag, M. S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In P. G. Boss, W. G. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Stienmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 419-448). New York: Plenum.
10.
Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, Cal. App. 4th 1410 (1998).
11.
Callahan, J. C. (Ed.). (1995). Reproduction, ethics, and the law: Feminist perspectives. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
12.
Coontz, S. (1997). The way we really are: Coming to terms with America’s changing families. New York: Basic Books.
13.
Cooper, S., & Glazer, E. (2000). Choices and challenges: The psychosocial aspects of the new reproductive technologies. In S. L. Crockin (Ed.), Adoptionand reproductive technology law in Massachusetts (pp. 531-550). Boston: Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education.
14.
Crockin, S. L. (Ed.). (2000). Adoption and reproductive technology law in Massachusetts. Boston: Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education.
15.
Daar, J. F. (2001). Frozen embryo disputes revisited: A trilogy of procreation-avoidance approaches. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, 29, 197-202.
16.
Dalton, S. (2000). Nonbiological mothers and the legal boundaries of motherhood. In H. Ragone & F. W. Twine (Eds.), Ideologies and technologies of motherhood: Race, class, sexuality, nationalism. New York: Routledge.
17.
Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992).
18.
Dienhart, A. (1998). Reshaping fatherhood: The social construction of shared parenting. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Dolgin, J. L. (1997). Defining the family: Law, technology, and reproduction in an uneasy age. New York: New York University Press.
20.
Dresser, R. (2000, November/December). Regulating assisted reproduction. Hastings Center Report, pp. 26-27.
21.
Edwards, J. N. (1991). New conceptions: Biosocial innovations and the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 349-360.
22.
Ely, J. H. (1980). Democracy and distrust: A theory of judicial review. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Fenwick, L. B. (1998). Private choices, public consequences: Reproductive technology and the new ethics of conception, pregnancy, and family. New York: Dutton.
24.
Franklin, S. (1997). Embodied progress: A cultural account of assisted conception. New York: Routledge.
25.
Franklin, S., & McKinnon, S. (2000). New directions in kinship study: A core concept revisited. Current Anthropology, 41, 275-279.
26.
Franklin, S., & McKinnon, S. (Eds.). (2001). Relative value: Reconfiguring kinship studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
27.
Franklin, S., & Ragone, H. (Eds.). (1998). Reproducing reproduction: Kinship, power, and technological innovation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
28.
Freundlich, J. (2001). Adoptionand ethics: Adoptionand assisted reproduction (Vol. 4). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
29.
Garrison, M. (1999). The technological family: What’s new and what’s not. Family Law Quarterly, 33, 691-704.
30.
Gillman, H., & Clayton, C. (1999). The Supreme Court in American politics: New institutionalist interpretations. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
31.
Glendon, M. A. (1994). A nation under lawyers: How the crisis in the legal profession is transforming American society. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
32.
Gostin, L. O. (2001). Surrogacy from the perspective of economic and civil liberties. Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, 17, 429-449.
33.
Hill, J. L. (1991). What does it mean to be a “parent”? The claims of biology as the basis for parental rights. New York University Law Review, 66, 353-420.
34.
Holbrook, S. M. (1996). Social workers’ attitudes toward participants’ rights in adoption and new reproductive technologies. Health and Social Work, 21, 257-266.
35.
hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston: South End.
36.
Hunter, M., Salter-Ling, N., & Glover, L. (2000). Donor insemination: Telling children about their origins. Child Psychology and Psychiatry Review, 54(4), 157-163.
37.
In the Matter of Baby M., 109 NJ 396, 537 A.2d 1227 (1988).
38.
Jacobs, F. H., & Davies, M. W. (Eds.). (1994). More than kissing babies. Current child and family policy in the United States. Westport, CT: Auburn House.
39.
Jaycee B. v. Superior Court of Orange County, 42 Cal. App. 4th 718 (1996).
40.
Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84 (1993).
41.
Katz-Rothman, B. (2000). Recreating motherhood. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
42.
Lauritzen, P. (1993). Pursuing parenthood: Ethical issues in assisted reproduction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
43.
Lindgren, R., & Taub, N. (1993). Law of sex discrimination. Wadsworth, OH: Wadsworth.
44.
MacDonald, M. (2000). Some assessment for future family policy research. In J. M. Mercier, S. B. Garasky, & M. C. Shelley II (Eds.), Redefining family policy: Implications for the 21st century (pp. 261-277). Ames: Iowa State University Press.
45.
Martin, E. (1987). The woman in the body: A cultural analysis of reproduction. Boston: Beacon.
46.
Mason, M. A., Fine, M. A., & Carnochan, S. (2001). Family law in the new millennium: For whose families?Journal of Family Issues, 22(7), 859-881.
47.
Moen, P., & Forest, K. B. (1999). Strengthening families: Policy issues for the 21st century. In M. Sussman, S. K. Stienmetz, G. W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (2nd ed., pp. 633-666). New York: Plenum.
48.
Moschetta v. Moschetta, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1218 (1994).
49.
Mullings, L. (1997). On our own terms: Race, class, and gender in the lives of African American women. New York: Routledge.
50.
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. (2000, February). Uniform Parentage Act. Available from http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/upa/final00.htm
51.
People v. Sorenson, 62 Cal. 2d. 280 (1968).
52.
Pinkerton, T. M. (1998). Surrogacy and egg donation law in California. Available from http://www.surrogacy.com/legals/article/calaw.html
53.
Posner, R. A. (1996). The federal courts: Challenge and reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
Purdy, L. M. (1996). Reproducing persons: Issues in feminist bioethics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
55.
Ragone, H. (1994). Surrogate motherhood: Conception in the heart. Boulder, CO: Westview.
56.
Robertson, J. A. (1992). Resolving disputes over frozen embryos. In C. S. Campbell (Ed.), What price parenthood? Ethics and assisted reproduction (pp.36-41). Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.
57.
Rosen, D. M. (1999). American families and American law. In M. Sussman, S. K. Stienmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (2nd ed., pp. 553-570). New York: Plenum.
58.
Shanley, M. L. (2001). Making babies, making families: What matters most in an age of reproductive technologies, surrogacy, adoption, and same sex and unwed parents. Boston: Beacon.
59.
Shapiro, V. B., Shapiro, J. R., & Paret, I. H. (2001). Complex adoption and assisted reproductive technology. New York: Guilford.
60.
Sheldon, C. H., & Maule, L. S. (1997). Choosing justice: The recruitment of state and federal judges. Pullman: Washington State University Press.
61.
Strathern, M. (1992). Reproducing the future: Anthropology, kinship, and the new reproductive technologies. London: Routledge.
62.
Triber, G. A. (1998). Growing pains: Disputes surrounding human reproductive interests stretch the boundaries of traditional legal concepts. Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 23, 103-140.
63.
Weaver, S. E., Umana-Taylor, A. J., Hans, J. D., & Malia, S. E. C. (2001). Challenges family scholars may face in studying family diversity: A focus on Latino families, stepfamilies, and reproductive technology. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 922-939.
64.
Wisensale, S. K. (2000). Family policy at the end of the 20th century. In J. M. Mercier, S. B. Garasky, & M. C. Shelley II (Eds.), Redefining family policy: Implications for the 21st century (pp. 3-20). Ames: Iowa State University Press.
65.
Zimmerman, S. L. (2001). Family policy: Constructed solutions to family problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
