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).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
All data are available from the corresponding author.
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Authors’ Contributions
MN, MTMS, LK, and EM designed the study and research material. MN supervised the data collection. MTMS and EM conducted the statistical analyses. MN, MTMS, LK, and EM contributed to interpretation of the data. EM devised the paper and wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to subsequent drafts and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the University of Toulouse (CERNI). All procedures performed in the study were in accordance with the current laws in the country, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nacher, M., Sastre, M.T.M., Kpanake, L. et al. Mapping French People’s Positions Regarding the Children’s Right to Know their Biological Parents’ Identity. J Child Fam Stud 29, 1723–1731 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01563-w
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01563-w