Skip to main content

Conclusion: Preventing Origin Deprivation

  • 542 Accesses

Abstract

The blood-tie matters, in terms of law, social policy, identity rights, socio-cultural customs and attitudes, and psychological welfare. The argument that an accurately ‘narrativized’ background may help to prevent or minimise the worst harms of origin deprivation and promote outcomes based upon child welfare paramountcy, also seems to be gaining ground.

Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Wegar (1997), p. 43.

  2. 2.

    See White (1980), pp. 1–23.

  3. 3.

    Strathern (2005), p. 3.

  4. 4.

    Levy-Schiff (2001), pp. 97–104 at p. 103; see further Morgan (1877); Lifton (2010), pp. 71–79 on how all members of the triad might be affected by unresolved grief over the losses associated with adoption.

  5. 5.

    Johnson (2002), pp. 39–54 at p. 39.

  6. 6.

    Brandon and Warner (1977), pp. 335–341 at p. 338.

  7. 7.

    Bonney (2002), pp. 201–208 at p. 207.

  8. 8.

    Franklin (2003), pp. 65–85 at p. 83.

  9. 9.

    Grace (2008), pp. 257–262 at p. 261.

  10. 10.

    Haimes (1988), pp. 46–61 at p. 47; see further Hargreaves (2006), pp. 261–283; McGee et al. (2001), pp. 2033–2038.

  11. 11.

    Miall (1987), pp. 34–39 at p. 34.

  12. 12.

    Raynor (1980), p. 37.

  13. 13.

    Levy-Schiff (2001), n 3, p. 102; see also Weider (1978), pp. 793–811.

  14. 14.

    Wegar (1997), n 1; see also Carsten (2000), pp. 687–703 on ‘difference perception’ p. 689.

  15. 15.

    Cahn and Singer (1999), pp. 162–165 at p. 162.

  16. 16.

    Lifton (1994), n 3, p. 37.

  17. 17.

    Ziller (1969), pp. 287–300 at p. 287.

  18. 18.

    Yngvesson and Mahoney (2000), pp. 77–110 at p. 77.

  19. 19.

    Verrier (1993), p. 109; see also Verrier (2003).

  20. 20.

    See for example Freidlander (2003), pp. 745–752 at p. 749. See also http://www.bastards.org (accessed 21.02.13) for an insightful, useful resource in terms of vetoes, adoptee search information, law reform updates and pithy adoptee humour.

  21. 21.

    Wegar (1997) n 1, p. xii.

  22. 22.

    Alber (2004), p. 34.

  23. 23.

    See further Talbot and Kidd (2004), p. 273.

  24. 24.

    See further the proposed English legislative reforms http://www.education.gov.uk/a00221161/children-families-bill (accessed 23.04.13).

  25. 25.

    See further http://www.ngdt.co.uk/ (accessed 12.03.13) on the UK’s National Gamete Donation Trust.

  26. 26.

    Triseliotis (1973); Blyth (2002), p. 797; Bonney (2002), pp. 201–208.

  27. 27.

    Brown (2001), p. 538; Sandler and Joffe (1969), pp. 585–595.

  28. 28.

    Baran and Pannor (1989); Powell and Afifi (2005), pp. 129–151.

  29. 29.

    See further Turner and Coyle (2000), pp. 2041–2051; Turkington and Taylor (2008), pp. 21–38; Neil (2007), pp. 1–19; Carp (1998).

  30. 30.

    Bowlby (1980).

  31. 31.

    Ainsworth et al. (1978).

  32. 32.

    On Ireland’s ‘Magdalene Laundries’ see further The Department of Justice and Equality Report http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/MagdalenRpt2013 (accessed 21.04.13); see further http://www.magdalenelaundries.com/ (accessed 22.04.13).

  33. 33.

    See for example Australia http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/21/julia-gillard-apologises-forced-adoptions (accessed 31.03.13).

  34. 34.

    An absolute right to genetic relinquishment is to an extent reminiscent of Roman family law doctrine, with children seen as chattel, subject to the authority or goodwill of their parents. ‘Tollere Libere’ for example permitted abandonment via exposure; a father’s refusal to ‘raise up’ such a child visibly endorsed relinquishment. Where another man lifted up the unwanted child, adoption was effected. Genetic fathers retained a power of redemption over children subsequently sold into slavery however. See also ‘patria potestas’ (family as discrete legal unit, virtually immune from State intervention) ‘ius abutendi’ (the right to destroy one’s ‘chattels’) and ‘paterfamilias’ (the family patriarch’s absolute power). See further Nicholas (1962).

  35. 35.

    See further Freeman (1996), pp. 273–297 at p. 297; Bainham (2008), pp. 260–262.

  36. 36.

    See for the UK’s Adoption Act 1976 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008.

  37. 37.

    See for example Pratten v British Columbia (Attorney General) [2012] BCCA 480 on gamete donation; Kearns v France ECHR 10 January 2008 (Application no 35991/04 on closed birth records.

  38. 38.

    See for example Cotter-Busbee and De Meyer (2012).

  39. 39.

    See for example Ross v PEI (Supreme Court, Family Division, Registrar) (1985) 56 Nfld & PEIR 248 [1985] PEIJ o 1 (PEISC) (QL) on the need to identity to enable inheritance claims, medical information, and avoidance of incest; Re Baby Boy K (1999) 701 NY S 2d 600 NY Fam Ct; see also however Re Adoption of Baby Boy S (1997) 705 A.2d.822 (NJ) Super.Ct.Ch.Div; Kelly v Superintendent of Child Welfare and Williams (1980) 23 BCLR 299 (SC) and Re Adoption of BA (1980) 17 RFL (2d) 140 (Man Co Ct) where neither applicant succeeded in showing that ‘identity issues’ were sufficient to open their sealed birth records; Ross v PEI (Supreme Court, Family Division, Registrar) (1985) 56 Nfld & PEIR 248 [1985] PEIJ o 1 (PEISC) (QL) where it was accepted that the adoptee could access her records on the basis of the need to identity to enable inheritance claims, medical information, and avoidance of incest.

  40. 40.

    On the limitations of International law in this area see further Blyth and Farrand (2004), pp. 89–104.

  41. 41.

    See for example Yousef v Netherlands [2003] 1 FLR 210; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (2010) [GC], no. 41615/07, ECHR.

  42. 42.

    Anayo v Germany [2010] ECHR 2083 (21 December. See further ‘The Best Interests Of The Child In The Recent Case-Law Of The European Court Of Human Rights’ Franco-British-Irish Colloque on Family Law (May 2011) available http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/E6F5D437-C49A-47C5-9772-578F54FB5C86/0/20110514_COLLOQUE_Dublin_FR.pdf (accessed 02.03.13).

  43. 43.

    A fairly wide margin of appreciation not withstanding; see for example In Re L (Care: Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] 2 FLR 730 on the need to view proceedings holistically rather than singling out particular aspects of process such as parental exclusion from meetings.

  44. 44.

    Pratten op cit n 36.

  45. 45.

    Pratten op cit n 36.

  46. 46.

    Kearns op cit n 36.

  47. 47.

    See for example Re G [2013] EWHC 134 (Fam).

  48. 48.

    Samson (1997), p. 226.

  49. 49.

    Eriksen (2004), pp. 49–62.

  50. 50.

    See Pratten op cit n 36.

  51. 51.

    On the different categories (‘generations’) of human rights see Alston and Robinson (2005); Alston (2005), pp. 755–829. See also Alston (1984), pp. 607–615.

  52. 52.

    See for example S v L [2012] UKSC 30 (11 July 2012); R and H v United Kingdom (2011) 54 EHRR 28; K (Children), Re [2011] EWCA Civ 1064 (20 July 2011).

  53. 53.

    See for example A & S (Children) v Lancashire County Council [2012] EWHC 1689 (Fam) (21 June 2012).

  54. 54.

    Demian (2004), n 22, p. 100.

  55. 55.

    Lifton (2010), n 3, p. 37.

  56. 56.

    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.

  57. 57.

    See however Re Bridget R et al (Minors) (1995) 25 USCA 1901 BO93520.

  58. 58.

    Miller (2002), pp. 196–200 at p. 197. See further Eekelaar (1994), pp. 42–61.

  59. 59.

    Ibid.

  60. 60.

    Ibid p. 198.

  61. 61.

    See for example Rushton (2007), pp. 305–311.

  62. 62.

    See for example Schooler (2008), pp. 111–123.

  63. 63.

    Parkes (2004), pp. 587–615 at p. 600.

  64. 64.

    Ryburn (1995), pp. 41–64 at p. 42.

  65. 65.

    Levy-Schiff (2001), n 3, p. 102.

  66. 66.

    See further Feast and Howe (1997), pp. 8–15; Schechter and Bertocci (1990).

  67. 67.

    See for example Kirton et al. (2000), pp. 6–18 on the motivation behind searches.

  68. 68.

    See for example Kim et al. (2010), pp. 179–190 on the perception of group meanings as to race and culture; Hill and Edwards (2009), pp. 45–53 on the potentially adverse consequences of a lack of information on the child’s health history and the ability of adopters to offer ‘therapeutic parenting’.

  69. 69.

    See the Australian Government Apology in respect of forced adoptions available http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/chamber/votes/2013-03-21/toc_pdf/RVPF160.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22apology%22 (accessed 23.04.13).

  70. 70.

    Carsten (2004), n 13, p. 183.

  71. 71.

    Mnookin and Kornhauser (1979), p. 950.

  72. 72.

    King and Trowell (1992).

  73. 73.

    Baldassi (2004–2005), pp. 212–265 at p. 218.

  74. 74.

    Blaffer (2003) (as cited by Woodhouse (2005–2006), pp. 298–329 at p. 309.

  75. 75.

    The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, ss 42, 45, 48 allows birth mothers in civil partnerships at the time of conception, to be named alongside their partner as legal parent to the child.

  76. 76.

    See for example Baldassi (2006), pp. 63–100 at p. 64; Halbmeyer (2004), n 22, p. 147.

  77. 77.

    On Kafalah and best interests see Harroudj v. France (October 2012) App No 43631/09 available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-113819 (accessed 1.04.13).

  78. 78.

    On kinship care in the United Kingdom, see Nandy et al. (2011) available at http://www.buttleuk.org/data/files/Research_Documents/FULL_REPORT_finalkinship.pdf (accessed 23.04.13); see also Selwyn et al. (2013) available at http://www.buttleuk.org/data/files/Research_Documents/Ch_10__11_of_The_Poor_Relations.pdf (accessed 23.04.13).

  79. 79.

    See further Nuffield Council on Bio-Ethics ‘Donor Conception: Ethical Aspects of Information Sharing’ (April 2013) available http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/Donor_conception_report_2013.pdf (accessed 28.04.13). See also comments on the Nuffield Report by E Blyth available http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_290373.asp?dinfo=7qYLvnCXFa3Jsxzobhay Pv5J&PPID=290513 (accessed 29.04.13) and the differing perspective of C Smart available http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_290058.asp?dinfo=7qYLvnCXFa3JsxzobhayPv5J&PPID=290513 (accessed 29.04.13).

References

  • Ainsworth, M. D. S., et al. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alber, E. (2004). The real parents are the foster parents: Social parenthood among the Baatombu in Northern Benin. In F. Bowie (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to adoption. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alston, P. (1984). Conjuring up new human rights: A proposal for quality control? American Journal of International Law, 78, 607–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alston, P. (2005). Ships passing in the night: The current state of the human rights and development debate seen through the lens of the millennium development goals. Human Rights Quarterly, 27(3), 755–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alston, P., & Robinson, M. (Eds.). (2005). Human rights and development: Towards mutual reinforcement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bainham, A. (2008). Removing babies at birth: A more than questionable practice. Cambridge Law Journal, 67(2), 260–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldassi, C. (2006). The legal status of aboriginal customary adoption across Canada: comparisons, contrasts and convergences. University of British Columbia Law Review, 39, 63–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baran, A., & Pannor, J. (1989). Lethal secrets. New York: Warner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaffer, S. (2003). Mothers and others. In A. Podolefsky, & P. J. Brown (Eds.), Applying anthropology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blyth, E. D. (2002). How it feels to be a child of donor insemination. British Medical Journal, 324, 797.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blyth, E. D., & Farrand, A. (2004). Anonymity in donor-assisted conception and the UN Convention on the rights of the child. The International Journal of Childrens Rights, 12, 89–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonney, H. (2002). The psychopathogenic power of secrecy: Child development and family dynamics after heterologous insemination. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 23(3), 201–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss (volume 3) loss, sadness and depression. London: Hogarth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon, J., & Warner, J. (1977). AID and adoption: Some comparisons. British Journal of Social Work, 7(3), 335–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. E. (2001, July). The role of perceived similarity to parents in adopted children’s adjustment. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62(1-B), 538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cahn, N., & Singer, J. (1999). Adoption, identity and the constitution: The case for opening closed records. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 1(50), 162–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carp, E. W. (1998). Family matters: Secrecy and disclosure in the history of adoption. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carsten, J. (2004). After kinship: New departures in anthropology. Boston: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cotter-Busbee, P., & De Meyer, T. A. (Eds.). (2012). Two worlds: Lost children of the Indian adoption projects. Greenfield: Blue Hand Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demian, M. (2004). Transactions in rights, transactions in children: A view of adoption from Papua new guinea. In F. Bowie (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to adoption. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eekelaar, J. (1994). The interests of the child and the child’s wishes: The role of dynamic self determination. In P. Alston (Ed.), The best interests of the child: Reconciling culture and human rights (pp. 42–61). Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eriksen, T. H. (2004). Place, kinship and the case for non-ethnic nations. Nations and Nationalism, 10(1/2), 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feast, J., & Howe, D. (1997). Adopted adults who search for background information and contact with birth relatives. Adoption and Fostering, 21(2), 8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco-British-Irish Colloque on Family Law. (2011, May). The best interests of the child in the recent case-law of the European Court Of Human Rights. Dublin: COE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. (2003). Re-thinking nature-culture: Anthropology and the new genetics. Anthropological Theory, 3, 65–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. (1996). The new birth right? Identity and the child of the reproduction revolution. The International Journal of Childrens Rights, 4, 273–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freidlander, M. L. (2003). Adoption: Misunderstood, mythologized, marginalized. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 745–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grace, V. M. (2008). The psycho-social politics of paternity in the case of male-donated gametes. Womens Studies International Forum, 31, 257–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haimes, E. (1988). Secrecy: What can artificial reproduction learn from adoption? International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 2, 46–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halbmeyer, E. (2004). “The one who feeds has the rights”: Adoption and fostering of kin, affines and enemies among the Yukpa and other Carib-speaking Indians of lowland South America. In F. Bowie (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to adoption. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, K. (2006). Constructing families and kinship through donor insemination. Sociology of Health and Illness, 28(3), 261–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C., & Edwards, M. (2009). Birth family health history. Adoption and Fostering, 33(2), 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. E. (2002). Adoption and the effect on children’s development. Early Human Development, 68(1), 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, G. S., Suyemoto, K. L., & Turner, C. B. (2010, April). Sense of belonging, sense of exclusion, and racial and ethnic identities in Korean transracial adoptees. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16(2), 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, M., & Trowell, J. (1992). Children’s welfare and the law: The limits of legal intervention. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirton, D., Feast, J., & Howe, D. (2000). Searching, reunion and transracial adoption. Adoption and Fostering, 24(3), 6–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy-Schiff, R. (2001). Psychological adjustment of adoptees in adulthood: Family environment and adoption-related correlates. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 97–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lifton, B. J. (2010, January). Ghosts in the adopted family. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 30(1), 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee, G., Brakman, S. V., & Gurmankin, A. (2001). Gamete donation and anonymity: Disclosure to children conceived with donor gametes should not be optional. Human Reproduction, 16(10), 2033–2038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miall, C. E. (1987, January). The stigma of adoptive parent status: perceptions of community attitudes towards adoption and the experience of informal social sanctioning. Family Relations, 36(1), 34–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. H. (2002). The psychological best interest of the child is not the legal best interest. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 30, 196–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin, R. H., & Kornhauser, L. (1979). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: The case of divorce. Yale Law Journal, 88, 950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, L. H. (1877). Ancient society. London: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nandy, S., Selwyn, J., Farmer, E., & Vaisey, P. (2011). Spotlight on kinship care. Bristol: University of Bristol.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neil, E. (2007). Post-adoption contact and openness in adoptive parents’ minds: Consequences for children’s development. British Journal of Social Work, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholas, B. (1962). An introduction to Roman law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkes, P. (2004). Fosterage kinship and legend: When milk was thicker than blood? Comparative Studies in Society And History, 46(3), 587–615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, K., & Afifi, T. D. (2005). Uncertainty management and adoptees’ ambiguous loss of their birth parents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 129–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raynor, L. (1980). The adopted child comes of age. George, Allen and Unwin: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, A. (2007). Outcomes of adoption from public care: Research and practice issues. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 13, 305–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryburn, M. (1995). Adopted children’s identity and information needs. Children and Society, 9(3), 41–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samson, C. (1997). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, J., & Joffe, W. G. (1969). Towards a basic psychoanalytic model: The theory of parent-infant relationship. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 41, 585–595.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schechter, M., & Bertocci, D. (1990). The meaning of the search. In: D. Brodzinsky, & M. Schechter (Eds.), The psychology of adoption. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schooler, J. E. (2008). Making the decision: To search or not to search. In J. E. Schooler, & B. L. Norris (Eds.), Journeys after adoption: Understanding lifelong issues (pp. 111–123). Connecticut: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn, J., Farmer, E., Meakings, S., & Vaisey, P. (2013, April). The poor relations? Children and informal kinship carers speak out (Chapters 10–11). Buttle Org, UK Summary Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strathern, M. (2005). Kinship, law and the unexpected: Relatives are always a surprise. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talbot, C., & Kidd, P. (2004, April). Special guardianship orders-issues in respect of family assessment. Family Law Journal, 34, 273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triseliotis, J. (1973). In search of origins: The experiences of adopted people. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkington, S., & Taylor, B. J. (2008). Post adoption face to face contact with birth parents: Prospective adopters’ views. Child Care in Practice, 15(1), 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, A. J., & Coyle, A. (2000). What does it mean to be a donor offspring? The identity experience of adults conceived by donor insemination and the implication for counselling and therapy. Human Reproduction, 15, 2041–2051.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verrier, N. (1993). The primal wound: understanding the adopted child. Lafayette, CA: Verrier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verrier, N. (2003). Coming home to self: The adopted child grows up. Baltimore: Gateway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegar, K. (1997). Adoption, identity and kinship: The debate over sealed birth records. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weider, H. (1978). On and whether to disclose about adoption. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 26, 793–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (1980). The value of narrativity in the representation of reality. In W. J. J. Mitchell (Ed.), On narrative. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodhouse, B. B. (2005–2006). Waiting for loving: The child’s fundamental right to adoption. Capital University Law Review, 34, 298–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziller, R. C. (1969, September). The alienation syndrome: A triadic pattern of self-other orientation. Sociometry, 32(3), 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Case Law

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Diver, A. (2014). Conclusion: Preventing Origin Deprivation. In: A Law of Blood-ties - The 'Right' to Access Genetic Ancestry. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01071-7_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics