Book contents
- Determining Legal Parentage
- Determining Legal Parentage
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Table of Cases
- Table of Legislation
- Introduction
- 1 The Shift in the Traditional Family Structure, Modern ART, and How They Are Undermining the Accepted Models for Determining Legal Parentage
- 2 An Overview of the Current ART, the Dilemmas They Surface, and the Role of DLPBA in the Positive Law
- 3 Overview of the Objections to DLPBA in the Positive Legal System
- 4 An Overview of the Arguments that Support DLPBA
- 5 Refuting the Objections to DLPBA in the Positive Legal System
- 6 The Theoretical and Practical Infrastructure of DLPBA
- 7 Implementing DLPBA in the Various Scenarios
- Conclusions
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 April 2019
Book contents
- Determining Legal Parentage
- Determining Legal Parentage
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Table of Cases
- Table of Legislation
- Introduction
- 1 The Shift in the Traditional Family Structure, Modern ART, and How They Are Undermining the Accepted Models for Determining Legal Parentage
- 2 An Overview of the Current ART, the Dilemmas They Surface, and the Role of DLPBA in the Positive Law
- 3 Overview of the Objections to DLPBA in the Positive Legal System
- 4 An Overview of the Arguments that Support DLPBA
- 5 Refuting the Objections to DLPBA in the Positive Legal System
- 6 The Theoretical and Practical Infrastructure of DLPBA
- 7 Implementing DLPBA in the Various Scenarios
- Conclusions
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Determining Legal ParentageBetween Family Law and Contract Law, pp. 261 - 309Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Primary Sources
Batzel, Matthew R., The Confirmation Process for Lower Federal Court Appointments in the Clinton and W. Bush Administrations: A Comparative Analysis (Thesis, Department of Government, Franklin and Marshall College, 2005).Google Scholar
Brewer, Holly, By Birth or Consent: Children, Law, and the Anglo-American Revolution in Authority (2005).Google Scholar
Bridgeman, Jo, Parental Responsibility, Young Children and Healthcare Law ( 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinig, Margaret, From Contract to Covenant, Beyond the Law and Economics of the Family (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Louise & Powell, Martin, Louise Brown: My Life as the World’s First Test-Tube Baby (2015).Google Scholar
Cahn, Naomi R., Test Tube Families: Why the Fertility Market Needs Legal Regulation (2009).Google Scholar
Clark, Rebecca A. et al., Planning Parenthood: Strategies for Success in Fertility Assistance, Adoption and Surrogacy (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corea, Gena, The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crockin, Susan L. & Jones, Howard W., Legal Conceptions: The Evolving Law and Policy of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (2010).Google Scholar
Daar, Judith F The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, Robyn M., Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgement and Decision Making (1988).Google Scholar
Del Fabro, Linda, Mothers with Arthritis: Experiences in the Stories of Mothering (Thesis, The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Rehabilitation Sciences), The University of British Columbia, 1996).Google Scholar
Dolgin, Janet L., Defining the Family: Law, Technology, and Reproduction in an Uneasy Age (1997).Google Scholar
Ekman, Kajsa Ekis, Being and Being Bought: Prostitution, Surrogacy and the Split Self (Suzanne Martin Cheadle trans., 2010).Google Scholar
Ellman, Ira Mark, Kurtz, Paul M. & Scott, Elizabeth S., Family Law: Cases, Text, Problems (3d ed. 1998).Google Scholar
Epp, Charles R., The Rights Revolution: Lawyers, Activists, and Supreme Courts in Comparative Perspective (1998).Google Scholar
Ertman, Martha M., Love’s Promises: How Formal and Informal Contracts Shape All Kinds of Families (2016).Google Scholar
Ertman, Martha M. & Williams, Joan C., Rethinking Commodification: Cases and Readings in Law and Culture (2005).Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha A., The Neutered Mother, the Sexual Family, and other Twentieth Century Tragedies (1995).Google Scholar
Glendon, Mary A., The Transformation of Family Law: State, Law and Family in the United States and Western Europe (1989).Google Scholar
Glover, William Kevin, Artificial Insemination Among Human Beings: Medical, Legal and Moral Aspects (1948).Google Scholar
Grossberg, Michael, Governing the Hearth: Law and the Family in Nineteenth Century America (1985).Google Scholar
Hacker, Daphna, Legalized Families in the Era of Bordered Globalization (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawes, Joseph M., The Children’s Rights Movement: A History of Advocacy and Protection (1991).Google Scholar
Hillman, Robert A., The Richness of Contract Law: An Analysis and Critique of Contemporary Theories of Contract Law (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Heather, Labor of Love: Gestational Surrogacy and the Work of Making Babies (2016).Google Scholar
Joslin, Courtney G. & Minter, Shannon P., Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual And Transgender Family Law (2012).Google Scholar
Kahn, Susan Martha, Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kevles, Daniel J., In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (1995).Google Scholar
Klaus, Marshall H. & Kennell, John H., Maternal-Infant Bonding: The Impact of Early Separation or Loss on Family Development (1976).Google Scholar
Leblanc, Lawrence J., The Convention on the Rights of the Child: United Nations Lawmaking on Human Rights (1995).Google Scholar
Llewellyn, Karl, Study of the Uniform Commercial Code in Report of the Law Revision Commission for 1954 (1954).Google Scholar
Lombardo, Paul A., Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, The Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell (2008).Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catharine A., Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macneil, Ian R., The New Social Contract: An Inquiry Into Modern Contractual Relations (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maine, Henry S., Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society and Its Relation to Modern Ideas ( 1931 [first published in 1861 ]).Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel, Determining Legal Parentage by Agreement (Ph.D. thesis, Bar-Ilan University, 2011 ) (Heb.).Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel The Jewish Family – Between Family Law and Contract Law (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, Terrance C., Inalienable Rights: The Limits of Consent in Medicine and the Law (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLanahan, Sara & Sandefur, Gary, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (1994).Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H. & Weisberg, D. Kelly, Child, Family and State: Problems and Materials on Children and the Law (3d ed. 1995).Google Scholar
Nelkin, Dorothy & Lindee, M. Susan, The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon (1995).Google Scholar
Ni Bhroin, Riona, Half the World Away: A Qualitative Study Exploring Migration and motherhood in New Zealand (Thesis, Arts in Psychology, Massey University 2012).Google Scholar
Ravitsky, Vardit & Dupras-Leduc, Raphëlle, Emerging Legal and Ethical Issues in Reproductive Technologies (2014).Google Scholar
Reilly, Philip R., The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States (1991).Google Scholar
Renwick, Trudi J., Poverty and Single Parent Families: A Study of Minimal Subsistence Household Budgets (1998).Google Scholar
Robertson, John A., Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roman, Mel & Haddad, William, The Disposable Parent: The Case for Joint Custody (1978).Google Scholar
Shanley, Mary L., Making Babies, Making Families: What Matters Most in an Age of Reproductive Technologies, Surrogacy, Adoption, and Same-Sex and Unwed Parents (2001).Google Scholar
Sinclair, Daniel B., Jewish Biomedical Law: Legal and Extra-Legal Dimensions (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, Peter & Wells, Deane, The Reproduction Revolution: New Ways of Making Babies (1984).Google Scholar
Slawson, David, Binding Promises: The Late 20th-Century Reformation of Contract Law (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spar, Debra, The Baby Business: How Money, Science, and Politics Drive the Commerce of Conception (2006).Google Scholar
Stanworth, Michelle, Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood, and Medicine (1987).Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R., After the Rights Revolution: Reconceiving the Regulatory State (1993).Google Scholar
Teman, Elly, Birthing a Mother: The Surrogate Body and the Pregnant Self (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tong, Rosemarie, Feminist Approaches to Bioethics: Theoretical Reflections and Practical Applications (1997).Google Scholar
Twine, France Winddance, Outsourcing the Womb: Race, Class, and Gestational Surrogacy in a Global Market (2011).Google Scholar
Wagner, William J., The Contractual Reallocation of Procreative Resources and Parental Rights: The Natural Endowment Critique (1995).Google Scholar
Walker, Ruth & van Zyl, Liezl, Towards a Professional Model of Surrogate Motherhood (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weitzman, Lenore J., The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences for Women and Children in America (1985).Google Scholar
Wendt, Krista, Medical Tourism: Trends and Opportunities (December 2012 ) (unpublished MBA thesis, University of Nevada), http://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations/1483/.Google Scholar
Westreich, Avishalom, Assisted Reproduction in Israel: Law, Religion and Culture (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, Barbara D., The Divorce Culture: Rethinking Our Commitments to Marriage and Family (1997).Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Stephen, Bodies for Sale: Ethics and Exploitation in the New Human Body Trade (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, Stephen Choosing Tomorrow’s Children: The Ethics of Selective Reproduction (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodhouse, Barbara B., Hidden in Plain Sight: The Tragedy of Children’s Rights from Ben Franklin to Lionel Tate (2008).Google Scholar
Secondary Sources
Assisting Reproduction, Testing Genes: Global Encounters With New Biotechnologies (Birenbaum-Carmeli, Daphna & Inhorn, Marcia C. eds., 2009).Google Scholar
Commodification of the Human Body: A Cannibal Market (Rainhorn, J.D. & El Boudamoussi, S. eds., 2015).Google Scholar
Divorce, Separation, and Remarriage: The Transformation of Family (Gianesini, Giovanna & Lee Blair, Sampson eds., 2016).Google Scholar
Ectogenesis: Artificial Womb Technology and the Future of Human Reproduction (Gelfand, Scott & Shook, John R. eds., 2006).Google Scholar
International Surrogacy Arrangements: Legal Regulation at the International Level (Trimmings, Katarina & Beaumont, Paul eds., 2013).Google Scholar
Parenting Plan Evaluations: Applied Research for the Family Court (Drozd, Leslie et al. eds., 2016).Google Scholar
Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine (Stanworth, Michelle ed., 1987).Google Scholar
Stepfamilies: History, Research, and Policy (Levin, Irene & Sussman, Marvin B. eds., 1997).Google Scholar
The Ethics of Embryo Adoption and the Catholic Tradition: Moral Arguments, Economic Reality and Social Analysis (Brakman, Sarah-Vaughan & Fozard Weaver, Darlene eds., 2007).Google Scholar
The Globalization of Health Care: Legal and Ethical Challenges (Cohen, I. Glenn ed., 2013).Google Scholar
The Legal Rights of Handicapped Persons: Cases, Materials, and Text (Burgdorf, Robert L. ed., 1980).Google Scholar
The Relational Theory of Contract: Selected Works of Ian Macneil (Campbell, David ed., 2001).Google Scholar
Women’s Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives (Peters, Julie ed., 1995).Google Scholar
Abraham, Haim, A Family Is What You Make It? Legal Recognition and Regulation of Multiple Parents, 25 Am. U.J . Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 405 (2017).Google Scholar
Abramowicz, Sarah, Childhood and the Limits of Contract, 21 Yale J.L. & Human. 37 (2009).Google Scholar
Abrams, Kerry & Garrett, Brandon L., DNA and Distrust, 91 Notre Dame L. Rev. 757 (2015).Google Scholar
Acker, Jacqueline M., The Case for an Unregulated Private Sperm Donation Market, 20 UCLA Women’s L.J. 1 (2013).Google Scholar
Acocella, Francesca R., Love Is Love: Why Intentional Parenting Should Be Standard for Two-Mother Families Created Through Egg Sharing, 14 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics J. 479 (2016).Google Scholar
Adamson, Charles W., Assisted Reproductive Techniques: When Is Sperm Donor a Dad?, 8 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc.279 (2009).Google Scholar
Aizpuru, Rebeca, Protecting the Unwed Father’s Opportunity to Parent: A Survey of Paternity Registry Statutes, 18 Rev. Litig. 703 (1999).Google Scholar
Alenick, Ashley, Pre-embryo Custody Battles: How Predisposition Contracts Could Be the Winning Solution, 38 Cardozo L. Rev. 1879 (2017).Google Scholar
Allen, Anita L., Privacy, Surrogacy, and the Baby M Case, 76 Geo. L.J. 1759 (1988).Google ScholarPubMed
Allen, Anita Surrogacy, Slavery, and the Ownership of Life, 13 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 139 (1990).Google ScholarPubMed
Almeling, Rene, Gender and the Value of Bodily Goods: Commodification in Egg and Sperm Donation, 72 Law & Contemp. Probs. 37 (2009).Google Scholar
Aloni, Erez, Cloning and the LGBTI Family: Cautious Optimism, 35 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 1 (2011).Google ScholarPubMed
Alstott, Anne L., Is the Family at Odds with Equality? The Legal Implications of Equality for Children, 82 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2008).Google Scholar
Althouse, Laura N., Three’s Company? How American Law Can Recognize a Third Social Parent in Same-Sex Headed Families, 19 Hastings Women’s L.J. 171 (2008).Google Scholar
Altman, Scott, A Theory of Child Support, 17 Int’l J.L. Pol’y & Fam. 173 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvare, Helen M., The Case for Regulating Collaborative Reproduction: A Children’s Rights Perspective, 40 Harv. J. On Legis. 1 (2003).Google ScholarPubMed
Amadio, Carol & Deutsch, Stuart L., Open Adoption: Allowing Adopted Children to Stay in Touch with Blood Relatives, 22 J. Fam. L. 59 (1983).Google Scholar
Anderson, Elizabeth S., Is Women’s Labor a Commodity? 19 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 71 (1990).Google ScholarPubMed
Anderson, Elizabeth S. Why Commercial Surrogate Motherhood Unethically Commodifies Women and Children: Reply to McLachlan and Swales, 8 Health Care Analysis 19 (2000).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, Linda S., Protecting Parent-Child Relationships: Determining Parental Rights of Same-Sex Parents Consistently Despite Varying Recognition of Their Relationship, 5 Pierce L. Rev. 1 (2006).Google Scholar
Anderson, Meghan, K.M. V. E.G.: Blurring the Lines of Parentage in the Modern Courts, 75 U. Cin. L. Rev. 275 (2006).Google Scholar
Anderson, Michelle L., Are You My Mommy? A Call for Regulation of Embryo Donation, 35 Cap. U.L. Rev. 589 (2006).Google Scholar
Andrews, Lori B., Beyond Doctrinal Boundaries: A Legal Framework for Surrogate Motherhood, 81 Va. L. Rev. 2343 ( 1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Lori Surrogate Motherhood: The Challenge for Feminists, in Surrogate Motherhood 167 (Gostin, Larry ed., 1990).Google Scholar
Andrews, Lori B. & Douglass, Lisa, Alternative Reproduction, 65 S. Cal. L. Rev. 623 (1991).Google ScholarPubMed
Angel, Ronald et al., Single Motherhood and Children’s Health, 29 J. Health & Soc. Behav. 38 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annas, George J., Fathers Anonymous: Beyond the Best Interests of the Sperm Donor, 14 Fam. L.Q. 1 (1980).Google ScholarPubMed
Annas, George Redefining Parenthood and Protecting Embryos: Why We Need New Laws, 14 Hastings Ctr. Rpt. 5 (1984).Google ScholarPubMed
Annas, George The Changing Face of Family Law: Global Consequences of Embedding Physicians and Biotechnology in the Parent-Child Relationship, 42 Fam. L.Q. 511 (2008).Google Scholar
Annas, George The Shadowlands – Secrets, Lies and Assisted Reproduction, 339 New Eng. J. Med. 935 (1998).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Apel, Susan B., Cryopreserved Embryos: A Response to “Forced Parenthood” and the Role of Intent, 39 Fam. L.Q. 663 (2005).Google ScholarPubMed
Appel, Blue Elizabeth E., Redefining Stewardship Over Body Parts, 21 J.L. & Health 75 (2007).Google Scholar
Appell, Annette R., Controlling for Kin: Ghosts in the Postmodern Family, 25 Wis. J.L. Gender & Soc’y 73 (2010).Google Scholar
Appell, Annette The Endurance of Biological Connection: Heteronormativity, Same-Sex Parenting and the Lessons of Adoption, 22 BYU J. Pub. L. 289 (2008).Google Scholar
Appell, Annette Uneasy Tensions Between Children’s Rights and Civil Rights, 5 Nev. L.J. 141 (2004).Google Scholar
Appleton, Susan Frelich, Between the Binaries: Exploring the Legal Boundaries of Nonanonymous Sperm Donation, 49 Fam. L.Q. 93 (2015).Google Scholar
Appleton, Susan Presuming Women: Revisiting the Presumption of Legitimacy in the Same-Sex Couples Era, 86 B.U. L. Rev. 227 (2006).Google Scholar
Arcaro, Timothy L., No More Secret Adoptions: Providing Unwed Biological Fathers with Actual Notice of the Florida Putative Father Registry, 37 Cap. U. L. Rev.449 (2008).Google Scholar
Arditti, Joyce & Madden-Derdich, Debra, Joint and Sole Custody Mothers: Implications for Research and Practice. Families in Society, 78(1) J. Contemp. Soc. Serv. 36 (1997).Google Scholar
Arora Kavita, Shah & Blake, Valarie, Uterus Transplantation: Ethical and Regulatory Challenges, 40(6) J. Med. Ethics 396 (2014).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Artis, Julie E., Judging the Best Interests of the Child: Judges’ Accounts of the Tender Years Doctrine, 38(4)L. & Soc. Rev. 769 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atiyah, Patrick S., Contracts Promises & the Law of Obligations, in Essays on Contract ch. 22 (2d ed. 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atiyah, Patrick Freedom of Contract and the New Right, in Essays on Contract 355 (2d ed. 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atwood, Barbara A., Ten Years Later: Lingering Concerns About the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act, 19 J. Legis. 127 (1993).Google Scholar
Aycock, Jamie A., Contracting Out of the Culture Wars: How the Law Should Enforce and Communities of Faith Should Encourage More Enduring Marital Commitments, 30 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 231 (2006).Google Scholar
Baiman, Alexia M., Cryopreserved Embryos as America’s Prospective Adoptees: Are Couples Truly “Adopting” or Merely Transferring Property Rights?, 16 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 133 (2009).Google Scholar
Baker, Hannah, A Possible Future Instrument on International Surrogacy Arrangements: Are There “Lessons” to be Learnt from the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention?, in International Surrogacy Arrangements: Legal Regulation at the International Level 411 (Trimmings, Katarina & Beaumont, Paul eds., 2013).Google Scholar
Baker, Katharine K., Asymmetric Parenthood, in Reconceiving the Family 121 (Wilson, Robin F. ed., 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Katharine K. Bargaining or Biology? The History and Future of Paternity Law and Parental Status, 14 Cornell J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 1 (2004).Google ScholarPubMed
Baker, Katharine K. Bionormativity and the Construction of Parenthood, 42 Ga. L. Rev. 649 (2008).Google Scholar
Baker, Katharine K. Legitimate Families and Equal Protection, 56 B.C. L. Rev. 1647 (2015).Google Scholar
Baker, Katharine K. Quacking Like a Duck? Functional Parenthood Doctrine and Same-Sex Parents, 92 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 135 (2017).Google Scholar
Baker, Katharine K. The DNA Default and Its Discontents: Establishing Modern Parenthood, 96 B.U. L. Rev. 2037 (2016).Google Scholar
Bakht, Natasha & Collins, Lynda M., Are You My Mother: Parentage in a Nonconjugal Family, 31 Can. J. Fam. L. 105 (2018).Google Scholar
Barak-Erez, Daphne, IVF Battles: Legal Categories and Comparative Tales, 28 Duke J. Comp. & Internat’l L. 247 (2018).Google Scholar
Barnes, Richard L., Rediscovering Subjectivity in Contracts: Adhesion and Unconscionability, 66 La. L. Rev. 123 (2005).Google Scholar
Bartholet, Elizabeth, Beyond Biology: The Politics of Adoption & Reproduction, 2 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 5 (1995).Google Scholar
Bartholet, Elizabeth Guiding Principles for Picking Parents, 27 Harv. Women’s L.J. 323 (2004).Google Scholar
Bartlett, Katharine Rethinking Parenthood as an Exclusive Status: The Need for Legal Alternatives When the Premise of the Nuclear Family Has Failed, 70 Va. L. Rev. 879 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaglioli, Leah C., Modified Best Interest Standard: How States against Same-Sex Unions Should Adjudicate Child Custody and Visitation Disputes between Same-Sex Couples, 54 Cath. U.L. Rev. 1235 (2005).Google Scholar
Baum, Kenneth, Golden Eggs: Towards the Rational Regulation of Oocyte Donation, 2001 BYU L. Rev. 107 (2001).Google Scholar
Bauserman, Robert, Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody versus Sole-Custody Arrangements: A Meta-Analytic Review, 16(1)J. Fam. Psych. 91 (2002).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bayern, Shawn J., Rational Ignorance, Rational Closed-Mindedness, and Modern Economic Formalism in Contract Law, 97 Cal. L. Rev. 943 (2009).Google Scholar
Becher, Shmuel I., A “Fair Contracts” Approval Mechanism: Reconciling Consumer Contracts and Conventional Contract Law, 42 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 747 (2009).Google Scholar
Beck, Mary, Toward a National Putative Father Registry Database, 25 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 1031 (2002).Google Scholar
Beermann, Jack M., Privatization and Political Accountability, 28 Fordham Urb. L.J. 1507 (2001).Google Scholar
Bell, Deborah H., Child Support Orders: The Common Law Framework-Part II, 69 Miss. L.J. 1063 (2000).Google Scholar
Ben-Asher, Noa, The Curing Law: On the Evolution of Baby-Making Markets, 30 Cardozo L. Rev. 1885 (2009).Google Scholar
Bender, Leslie, Creating Life? Examining the Legal, Ethical, and Medical Issues of Assisted Reproductive Technologies: “To Err Is Human” ART Mix-ups: A Labor-Based, Relational Proposal, 9 J. Gender Race & Just. 443 (2006).Google Scholar
Bender, Leslie Genes, Parents, and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: ARTs, Mistakes, Sex, Race, & Law, 12 Colum. J. Gender & L. 1 (2003).Google ScholarPubMed
Bender, Steven W., Rate Regulation at the Crossroads of Usury and Unconscionability: The Case for Regulating Abusive Commercial and Consumer Interest Rates under the Unconscionability Standard, 31 Hous. L. Rev. 721 (1994).Google Scholar
Benson, Peter, Abstract Right and the Possibility of a Nondistributive Conception of Contract: Hegel and Contemporary Contract Theory, 10 Cardozo L. Rev. 1077 (1989).Google Scholar
Berkowitz, Jonathan M., Mummy Was a Fetus: Motherhood and Fetal Ovarian Transplantation, 21 Journal of Medical Ethics 298 (1995).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernstein, Gaia, The Socio-Legal Acceptance of New Technologies: A Close Look at Artificial Insemination, 77 Wash. L. Rev. 1035 (2002).Google Scholar
Berys, Flavia, Interpreting a Rent-a-Womb Contract: How California Courts Should Proceed When Gestational Surrogacy Arrangements Go Sour, 42 Cal. W. L. Rev. 321 (2006).Google Scholar
Bix, Brian, Bargaining in the Shadow of Love: The Enforcement of Premarital Agreements and How We Think About Marriage, 40 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 145 (1998).Google Scholar
Bix, Brian The ALI Principles and Agreements: Seeking a Balance Between Status and Contract, in Reconceiving the Family 372 (Wilson, Robin F. ed., 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bix, Brian The Public and Private Faces of Family Law, 2004 U. Chi. Legal F. 295 (2004).Google Scholar
Blackburn, Christen, Family Law – Who Is a Mother? Determining Legal Maternity in Surrogacy Arrangements in Tennessee, 39 U. Mem. L. Rev. 349 (2009).Google Scholar
Blair-Stanek, Andrew, Defaults and Choices in the Marriage Contract: How to Increase Autonomy, Encourage Discussion, and Circumvent Constitutional Constraints, 24 Touro L. Rev. 31 (2008).Google Scholar
Blecher-Prigat, Ayelet, Conceiving Parents, Harvard J. L. & Gender (forthcoming, 2019), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3161597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blecher-Prigat, Ayelet Rethinking Visitation: From a Parental to a Relational Right, 16 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 1 (2009).Google Scholar
Blumenthal, Jeremy A., Law and the Emotions: The Problems of Affective Forecasting, 80 Ind. L.J. 155 (2005).Google Scholar
Blyth, Eric, Parental Orders and Identity Registration: One Country Three Systems, 32(4)Journal of Soc. Wel. & Fam. L. 345 (2010).Google Scholar
Boatman, Melissa, Bringing up Baby: Maryland Must Adopt an Equitable Framework for Resolving Frozen Embryo Disputes after Divorce, 37 U. Balt. L. Rev. 285 (2008).Google Scholar
Bodey, Vivian, Enforcement of Interspousal Contracts: Out with the “Old Ball & Chain” and in with Marital Equality and Freedom, 37 Sw. U. L. Rev. 239 (2008).Google Scholar
Boucai, Michael, Is Assisted Procreation an LGBT Right?, 2016 Wis. L. Rev. 1065 (2016).Google Scholar
Bowen, Deirdre M., The Parent Trap: Differential Familial Power in Same-Sex Families, 15 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 1 (2008).Google Scholar
Brahams, Diana, The Hasty British Ban on Commercial Surrogacy, 17 Hastings Ctr. Report 16 (1987).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brake, Elizabeth, Fatherhood and Child Support: Do Men have a Right to Choose?, 22(1) J. App. Phil. 55 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brake, Elizabeth Willing Parents: A Voluntarist Account of Parental Role Obligations, in Procreation and Parenthood: The Ethics of Bearing and Rearing Children 151 (Archard, David & Benatar, David eds., 2010).Google Scholar
Brake, Elizabeth & Millum, Joseph, Parenthood and Procreation, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016), https://stanford.library.sydney.edu.au/entries/parenthood/.Google Scholar
Brandel, Abby, Gender, Law and Health Care: Legislating Surrogacy: A Partial Answer to Feminist Criticism, 54 Md. L. Rev. 488 (1995).Google Scholar
Brännström, Mats et al., Livebirth After Uterus Transplantation, 385(9968)The Lancet 607 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braver, Sanford L. & Votruba, Ashley M., Does Joint Physical Custody “Cause” Children’s Better Outcomes?, 59(5) J. Divorce & Remarriage 1 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brazier, Margaret, Regulating the Reproduction Business?, 7 Med. L. Rev. 166 (1999).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bridge, Stuart, Assisted Reproduction and the Legal Definition of Parentage, in What is a Parent?: A Socio-Legal Analysis 73 (Bainham, Andrew et al. eds., 1999).Google Scholar
Bridwell, Philip,The Philosophical Dimensions of the Doctrine of Unconscionability, 70 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1513 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinig, Margaret F., A Maternalistic Approach to Surrogacy: Comment on Richard Epstein’s Surrogacy: The Case for Full Contractual Enforcement, 81 Va. L. Rev. 2377 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinig, Margaret Book Review: Status, Contract and Covenant a Review of Family Law and the Pursuit of Intimacy by Milton C. Regan, 79 Cornell L. Rev. 1573 (1994).Google Scholar
Brinig, Margaret F. & Crafton, Steven M., Marriage and Opportunism, 23 J. Legal Stud. 869 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinig, Margaret & Nock, Steven, Covenant and Contract, 12 Regent U. L. Rev. 9 (1999).Google Scholar
Brown, Evelyn L., The Uncertainty of U.C.C. Section 2-302: Why Unconscionability Has Become a Relic, 105 Com. L.J. 287 (2000).Google Scholar
Brown, Hutton et al., Legal Rights and Issues Surrounding Conception, Pregnancy and Birth, 39 Vand. L. Rev. 597 (1986).Google Scholar
Browne-Barbour, Vanessa S., Bartering for Babies: Are Preconception Agreements in the Best Interests of Children?, 26 Whittier L. Rev. 429 (2004).Google Scholar
Brugger, Kristiana, International Law in the Gestational Surrogacy Debate, 35 Fordham Int’l L.J. 665 (2012).Google Scholar
Bruno, Christopher, A Right to Decide Not to Be a Legal Father: Gonzales v. Carhart and the Acceptance of Emotional Harm as a Constitutionally Protected Interest, 77 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 141 (2008).Google Scholar
Buchanan, Elizabeth, The Constitutional Rights of Unwed Fathers Before and After Lehr v. Robertson, 45 Ohio St. L.J. 313 (1984).Google Scholar
Burgdorf, Robert L. & Burgdorf, Marcia Pearce, The Wicked Witch Is Almost Dead: Buck v. Bell and the Sterilization of Handicapped Persons, 50 Temp. L.Q. 995 (1977).Google Scholar
Buss, Emily, Children’s Associational Rights? Why Less Is More, 11 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 1101 (2003).Google Scholar
Bussel, Karen A., Gestational Surrogate Mother Tort Liability, 41 Duke L.J. 661 (1991).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butterfield Isaacson, Ruth, “Teachable Moments”: The Use of Child-Centered Arguments in the Same-Sex Marriage Debate, 98 Calif. L. Rev. 121 (2010).Google Scholar
Bychkov Green, Sonia, How Modern Assisted Reproductive Technologies Challenge the Traditional Realm of Conflicts of Law, 24 Wis. J.L., Gender & Soc’y 25 (2009).Google Scholar
Byrn, Mary Patricia & Giddings, Lisa, An Empirical Analysis of the Use of the Intent Test to Determine Parentage in Assisted Reproductive Technology Cases, 50 Hous. L. Rev. 1295 (2013).Google Scholar
Byrn, Mary Patricia & Holzer, Erica, Codifying the Intent Test, 41 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 130 (2015).Google Scholar
Cacioppo, Jayna M., Voluntary Acknowledgments of Paternity: Should Biology Play a Role in Determining Who Can Be a Legal Father? 38 Ind. L. Rev. 479 (2005).Google Scholar
Cahn, Naomi R., Do Tell! The Rights of Donor-Conceived Offspring, 42 Hofstra L. Rev. 1077 (2014).Google Scholar
Cahn, Naomi Necessary Subjects: The Need for a Mandatory National Donor Gamete Databank, 12 DePaul J. Health Care L. 203 (2009).Google Scholar
Cahn, Naomi Parenthood, Genes, and Gametes: The Family Law and Trusts and Estates Perspectives, 32 U. Mem. L. Rev. 563 (2002).Google ScholarPubMed
Calabresi, Guido & Melamed, A. Douglas, Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1089 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvo, Megan S., Uniform Parentage Act – Say Goodbye to Donna Reed: Recognizing Stepmothers’ Rights, 30 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 773 (2008).Google Scholar
Campbell, Angela, Conceiving Parents through Law, 21 Int’l J.L. Pol’y & Fam. 242 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Ardis L., Determination of Status as Legal or Natural Parents in Contested Surrogacy Births, 77 A.L.R. 5th 567 (2000).Google Scholar
Capron, A.M. & Radin, M.J., Choosing Family Law over Contract Law as a Paradigm for Surrogate Motherhood, 16 J. L. Med. & Health Care 34 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carbone, June, From Partners to Parents Revisited: How Will Ideas of Partnership Influence the Emerging Definition of California Parenthood? 7 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 3 (2007).Google Scholar
Carbone, June Income Sharing: Redefining the Family in Terms of Community, 31 Hous. L. Rev. 359 (1994).Google Scholar
Carbone, June The Legal Definition of Parenthood: Uncertainty at the Core of Family Identity, 65 La. L. Rev. 1295 (2005).Google Scholar
Carbone, June The Role of Adoption in Winning Public Recognition for Adult Partnerships, 35 Cap. U. L. Rev. 341 (2006).Google Scholar
Carbone, June What Does Bristol Palin Have to Do with Same-Sex Marriage?, 45 U.S.F.L. Rev. 313 (2010).Google Scholar
Carbone, June & Cahn, Naomi, Changing American State and Federal Childcare Laws: Parents, Babies, and More Parents, 92 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 9 (2017).Google Scholar
Carbone, June & Cahn, Naomi Families, Fundamentalism, & the First Amendment: Embryo Fundamentalism, 18 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1015 (2010).Google Scholar
Carbone, June & Cahn, Naomi Jane the Virgin and Other Stories of Unintentional Parenthood, 7 UC Irvine L. Rev. 511 (2017).Google Scholar
Carbone, June & Cahn, Naomi Marriage, Parentage, and Child Support, 45(2)Fam. L. Q. 219 (2011).Google Scholar
Carbone, June & Cahn, Naomi Which Ties Bind? Redefining the Parent-Child Relationship in an Age of Genetic Certainty, 11 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 1011 (2003).Google Scholar
Carbone, June & Lynee Madeira, Jody, Buyers in the Baby Market: Toward a Transparent Consumerism, 91 Wash. L. Rev. 71 (2016).Google Scholar
Carter, Kari J., The Best Interest Test and Child Custody: Why Transgender Should Not be a Factor in Custody Determinations, 16 Health Matrix 209 (2006).Google ScholarPubMed
Casey, Jillian et al., Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 17 Geo. J. Gender & L. 83 (2016).Google Scholar
Cashman, Tracy, When Is a Biological Father Really a Dad?, 24 Pepp. L. Rev. 959 (1997).Google Scholar
Caster, Austin, Don’t Split the Baby: How the U.S. Could Avoid Uncertainty and Unnecessary Litigation and Promote Equality by Emulating the British Surrogacy Law Regime, 10 Conn. Pub. Int. L.J. 477 (2011).Google Scholar
Caterina, Jessica R., Glorious Bastards: The Legal and Civil Birthright of Adoptees to Access Their Medical Records in Search of Genetic Identity, 61 Syracuse L. Rev. 145 (2010).Google Scholar
Chambers, David L., Fathers, the Welfare System, and the Virtues and Perils of Child-Support Enforcement, 81 Va. L. Rev. 2575 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, David L. The Coming Curtailment of Compulsory Child Support, 80 Mich. L. Rev. 1614 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chandler, Harry S., A Legislative Approach to Artificial Insemination, 53 Cornell L.Q. 497 (1968).Google Scholar
Charney, Mitchell A., The Rebirth of Private Adoptions, 71(6)Am. Bar Assoc. J. 52 (1985).Google Scholar
Charo, R. Alta, And Baby Makes Three – Or Four, or Five, or Six: Redefining the Family after the Reprotech Revolution, 15 Wis. Women’s L.J. 231 (2000).Google Scholar
Charo, R Biological Determinism in Legal Decision Making: The Parent Trap, 3 Tex. J. Women & L. 265 (1994).Google Scholar
Chen, Janie, The Right to Her Embryos: An Analysis of Nahmani v. Nahmani and Its Impact on Israeli In Vitro Fertilization Law, 7 Cardozo J. Int’l & Comp. L. 325 (1999).Google Scholar
Cherlin, Andrew J., The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage, 66 J. Marriage & Fam. 848 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, April L., The Rise of the Reproductive Brothel in the Global Economy: Some Thoughts on Reproductive Tourism, Autonomy, and Justice, 17 U. Pa. J.L. & Soc. Change 257 (2014).Google Scholar
Chester, Ronald, Posthumously Conceived Heirs Under a Revised Uniform Probate Code, 38 Real Prop. Prob. & Tr. J. 727 (2004).Google Scholar
Childres, Robert & Spitz, Stephen J., Status in the Law of Contract, 47 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1 (1972).Google Scholar
Choudhury, Cyra Akila, The Political Economy and Legal Regulation of Transnational Commercial Surrogate Labor, 48 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 1 (2015).Google Scholar
Choudhury, Cyra Akila Transnational Commercial Surrogacy: Contracts, Conflicts, and the Prospects of International Legal Regulation, Oxford Handbook Online (2016), www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935352.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935352-e-38#oxfordhb-9780199935352-e-38-note-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, Craig W., Legal Ordering of Family Values: The Case of Gay and Lesbian Families, 18 Cardozo L. Rev. 1299 (1997).Google Scholar
Chung, Lisa Hird, Free Trade in Human Reproductive Cells: A Solution to Procreative Tourism and the Unregulated Internet, 15 Minn. J. Int’l L. 263 (2006).Google Scholar
Clarke, Jacqueline, Dying to Be Mommy: Using Intentional Parenthood as a Proxy for Consent in Posthumous Egg Retrieval Cases, 2012 Mich. St. L. Rev. 1331 (2012).Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Glenn Medical Tourism, Access to Health Care, and Global Justice, 52 Va. J. Int’l L. 1 (2011).Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Glenn Protecting Patients with Passports: Medical Tourism and the Patient-Protective Argument, 95 Iowa L. Rev. 1467 (2010).Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Glenn The Constitution and the Rights Not to Procreate, 60 Stan. L. Rev. 1135 (2008).Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Glenn The Price of Everything, the Value of Nothing: Reframing the Commodification Debate, 117 Harv. L. Rev. 689 (2003).Google Scholar
Cohen, I. Glenn et al., Transatlantic Lessons in Regulation of Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy, 348 Science 178 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, Jacques & Alikani, Mina, The Biological Basis for Defining Bi-Parental or Tri-Parental Origin of Offspring From Cytoplasmic and Spindle Transfer, 26(6) Reproductive BioMedicine Online 535 (2013), www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147264831300134X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, Lloyd, Marriage, Divorce, and Quasi Rents; or, “I Gave Him the Best Years of My Life,” 16 J. Legal Stud.267 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Carl H., Procreative Liberty and Contemporaneous Choice: An Inalienable Rights Approach to Frozen Embryo Disputes, 84 Minn. L. Rev. 55 (1999).Google ScholarPubMed
Coleman, Malina, Gestation, Intent, and the Seed: Defining Motherhood in the Era of Assisted Human Reproduction, 17 Cardozo L. Rev. 497 (1996).Google Scholar
Cook, Rachel et al., Introduction, in Surrogate Motherhood: International Perspectives 1 (Cook, Rachel et al. eds., 2003).Google Scholar
Coombs, Mary, Insiders and Outsiders: What the American Law Institute Has Done for Gay and Lesbian Families, 8 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 87 (2001).Google Scholar
Cortez, Nathan, Patients Without Borders: The Emerging Global Market for Patients and the Evolution of Modern Health Care, 83 Ind. L.J. 71 (2008).Google Scholar
Cossman, Brenda, Contesting Conservatisms, Family Feuds and the Privatization of Dependency, 13 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 415 (2005).Google Scholar
Coupet, Sacha M., Ain’t I a Parent: The Exclusion of Kinship Caregivers from the Debate over Expansions of Parenthood, 34 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 595 (2010).Google Scholar
Craswell, Richard, Contract Remedies, Renegotiation, and the Theory of Efficient Breach, 61 S. Cal. L. Rev. 629 (1988).Google Scholar
Crews, Heather A., Women Be Warned, Egg Donation Isn’t All It’s Cracked Up to Be: The Copulation of Science and the Courts Makes Multiple Mommies, 7 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 141 (2005).Google Scholar
Crockin, Susan L. & Debele, Gary A., Ethical Issues in Assisted Reproduction: A Primer for Family Law Attorneys, 27 J. Am. Acad. Matrimonial Law. 289 (2015).Google Scholar
Crooks, Valorie A. et al., Ethical and Legal Implications of the Risks of Medical Tourism for Patients: A Qualitative Study of Canadian Health and Safety Representatives’ Perspectives, 3 (2) BMJ Open 1 (2013).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cucci, Nicole L., Constitutional Implications of In Vitro Fertilization Procedures, 72 St. John’s L. Rev. 417 (1998).Google Scholar
Curie-Cohen, Martin et al., Current Practice of Artificial Insemination by Donor in the United States, 300 New Eng. J. Med. 585 (1979).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Czapanskiy, Karen, Volunteers and Draftees: The Struggle for Parental Equality, 38 UCLA L. Rev. 1415 (1991).Google Scholar
Daar, Judith F., The Prospect of Human Cloning: Improving Nature or Dooming the Species?, 33 Seton Hall L. Rev. 511 (2003).Google ScholarPubMed
Dagan, Hanoch, On Incomplete Commodification, Intergenerational Justice, and Legal Transitions, 84 B.U. L. Rev. 1139 (2004).Google Scholar
Dailey, Anne C., Constitutional Privacy and the Just Family, 67 Tul. L. Rev. 955 (1993).Google Scholar
Dallas, Traci, Rebutting the Marital Presumption: A Developed Relationship Test, 88 Colum. L. Rev. 369 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, Clare, An Essay in the Deconstruction of Contract Doctrine, 94 Yale L.J. 997 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’alton-Harrison, Rita, Mater Semper Incertus Est: Who’s Your Mummy?, 22(3)Med. Law Rev. 357 (2014).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daly, Kerry J. & Sobol, Michael P., Public and Private Adoption: A Comparison of Service and Accessibility, 43(1) Family Relations 86 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dana, Anne R., The State of Surrogacy Laws: Determining Legal Parentage for Gay Fathers, 18 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 353 (2011).Google Scholar
Dawson, John P., Judicial Revision of Frustrated Contracts: The United States, 64 B.U. L. Rev. 1 (1984).Google Scholar
Debele, Gary A., Custody and Parenting By Persons Other Than Biological Parents: When Non-Traditional Family Law Collides with the Constitution, 83 N.D. L. Rev. 1227 (2007).Google Scholar
Del Priore, Giuseppe et al., Uterine Transplantation—a Real Possibility? The Indianapolis Consensus, 28 Human Reproduction 288 (2013), http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/11/29/humrep.des406.short.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLair, Catherine, Ethical, Moral, Economic and Legal Barriers to Assisted Reproductive Technologies Employed by Gay Men and Lesbian Women, 4 Depaul J. Health Care L. 147 (2000).Google Scholar
DeOliveira, Jacqueline B., Marriage, Procreation and the Prisoner: Should Reproductive Alternatives Survive During Incarceration, 5 Touro L. Rev. 189 (1988).Google Scholar
Developments in the Law – Medical Technology and the Law, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1519 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Developments in the Law: IV. Changing Realities of Parenthood: The Law’s Response to the Evolving American Family and Emerging Reproductive Technologies, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 2052 (2003).Google Scholar
Dickinson, Robert L., Artificial Impregnation: Essays in Tubal Insemination, 1 Am. J. Obstetrics & Gynecology 255 (1920).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Difonzo, Herbie & Stern, Ruth C., The Children of Baby M., 39 Cap. U. L. Rev. 345 (2011).Google Scholar
DiMatteo, Larry A. & Rich, Bruce L., A Consent Theory of Unconscionability: An Empirical Study of Law in Action, 33 Fla. St. U.L. Rev. 1067 (2006).Google Scholar
Dimond, Rebecca, Social and Ethical Issues in Mitochondrial Donation, 115(1) Br. Med. Bull. 173 (2015), http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/115/1/173.short – corresp-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolgin, Janet L., An Emerging Consensus: Reproductive Technology and the Law, 23 Vt. L. Rev. 225 (1998).Google Scholar
Dolgin, Janet L. Choice, Tradition, and the New Genetics: The Fragmentation of the Ideology of Family, 32 Conn. L. Rev. 523 (2000).Google ScholarPubMed
Dolgin, Janet L. Solomon’s Dilemma: Exploring Parental Rights: The “Intent” of Reproduction: Reproductive Technologies and the Parent-Child Bond, 26 Conn. L. Rev. 1261 (1994).Google Scholar
Dolgin, Janet Status and Contract in Surrogate Motherhood: An Illumination of the Surrogacy Debate, 38 Buff. L. Rev. 515 (1990).Google ScholarPubMed
Dolgin, Janet Suffer the Children: Nostalgia, Contradiction and the New Reproductive Technologies, 28 Ariz. St. L.J. 473 (1996).Google ScholarPubMed
Dolgin, Janet The Family in Transition: From Griswold to Eisenstadt and Beyond., 82 Geo. L.J. 1519 (1994).Google Scholar
Dolgin, Janet The Fate of Childhood: Legal Models of Children and the Parent-Child Relationship, 61 Alb. L. Rev. 345 (1997).Google Scholar
Don, Brian P. et al., Feeling Like Part of a Team: Perceived Parenting Agreement Among First-Time Parents, 30(8)J. Soc. & Personal R’ships 1121 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, Theresa, Whole Foods for the Whole Pregnancy: Regulating Surrogate Mother Behavior During Pregnancy, 23 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 367 (2017).Google Scholar
Donovan, Carol A., The Uniform Parentage Act and Nonmarital Motherhood-by-Choice, 11 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 193 (1982–1983).Google Scholar
Dorner, Dalia, Human Reproduction: Reflections on the Nachmani Case, 35 Tex. Int’l L.J. 1 (2000).Google ScholarPubMed
Doskow, Emily, The Second Parent Trap: Parenting for Same-Sex Couples in a Brave New World, 20 J. Juv. L. 1 (1999).Google Scholar
Douglas, Gillian, Marriage, Cohabitation and Parenthood – From Contract to Status, in Cross Currents: Family Law and Policy in the US and England 211 (John, Eekelaar et al. eds., 2000).Google Scholar
Dowd, Nancy E., Fathers and the Supreme Court: Founding Fathers and Nurturing Fathers, 54 Emory L.J. 1271 (2005).Google Scholar
Dowd, Nancy From Genes, Marriage and Money to Nurture: Redefining Fatherhood, 10 Cardozo Women’s L.J. 132 (2003).Google Scholar
Downey, Kristen Joy, You Are Not the Father! – Parental Liabilities and Rights of Sperm Donors in Tennessee, 47 U. Mem. L. Rev. 597 (2016).Google Scholar
Drake, R. Brent, Status or Contract? A Comparative Analysis of Inheritance Rights Under Equitable Adoption and Domestic Partnership Doctrines, 39 Ga. L. Rev. 675 (2005).Google Scholar
Duncan, John C., The Ultimate Best Interest of the Child Enures from Parental Reinforcement: The Journey to Family Integrity, 83 Neb. L. Rev. 1240 (2005).Google Scholar
Duncan, William, Action in Support of the Hague Child Abduction Convention: A View from the Permanent Bureau, 33 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 103 (2000).Google Scholar
Dupras-Leduc, Raphaëlle et al., Mitochondrial/Nuclear Transfer: A Literature Review of the Ethical, Legal and Social Issues, 1(2) Rev. Can. Bioeth. 1 (2018).Google Scholar
Dwyer, James G., Parents’ Religion and Children’s Welfare: Debunking the Doctrine of Parents’ Rights, 82 Cal. L. Rev. 1371 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastman, Katelin, Alimony Your Eggs: Fertility Compensation in Divorce Proceedings, 42 Pepp. L. Rev. 293 (2015).Google Scholar
Eekelaar, John, Are Parents Morally Obliged to Care for their Children? 11 Oxford J. L. Stud. 340 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eekelaar, John Parental Responsibility: State of Nature or Nature of the State? 13(1) J. S. Wel. & Fam. L. 37 (1997).Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Melvin A., Relational Contracts, in Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law 291 (Beatson, Jack & Friedmann, Daniel eds., 1995).Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Melvin A. The Limits of Cognition and the Limits of Contract, 47 Stan. L. Rev. 211 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Melvin A. The Responsive Model of Contract Law, 36 Stan. L. Rev. 1107, 1108 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenberg, Melvin A. The Role of Fault in Contract Law: Unconscionability, Unexpected Circumstances, Interpretation, Mistake, and Nonperformance, 107 Mich. L. Rev. 1413 (2009).Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Melvin A. Why There Is No Law of Relational Contracts, 94 Nw. U. L. Rev. 805 (2000).Google Scholar
Ellman, Ira M. Unmarried Partners and the Legacy of Marvin v. Marvin: “Contract Thinking” Was Marvin’s, 76 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1365 (2001).Google Scholar
Elrod, Linda D., A Child’s Perspective of Defining a Parent: The Case for Intended Parenthood, 25 BYU J. Pub. L. 245 (2011).Google Scholar
Elster, Jon, Solomonic Judgments: Against the Best Interest of the Child, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, Martin, Cross-Border Surrogacy: Time for a Convention?, in Family Law and Culture in Europe: Developments, Challenges and Opportunities 199 (Boele-Woelki, Katharina et al. eds., 2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Richard A., Surrogacy: The Case for Full Contractual Enforcement, 81 Va. L. Rev. 2305 (1995).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Epstein, Richard A. Unconscionability: A Critical Reappraisal, 18 J.L. & Econ. 293 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ergas, Yasmine, Babies Without Borders: Human Rights, Human Dignity, and the Regulation of International Commercial Surrogacy, 27 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 117 (2013).Google Scholar
Ertman, Martha M., AALS Section on Contracts: New Frontiers in Private Ordering: Mapping the New Frontiers of Private Ordering: Afterword, 49 Ariz. L. Rev. 695 (2007).Google Scholar
Ertman, Martha M. Book Review: Legal Tenderness: Feminist Perspectives on Contract Law, 18 Yale J.L. & Feminism 545 (2006).Google Scholar
Ertman, Martha M. Marriage as a Trade: Bridging the Private/Private Distinction, 36 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 79 (2001).Google Scholar
Ertman, Martha M. Private Ordering Under the ALI Principles: As Natural as Status, in Reconceiving the Family 284 (Wilson, Robin F. ed., 2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ertman, Martha M. What’s Wrong with a Parenthood Market? A New and Improved Theory of Commodification, 82 N.C. L. Rev. 1 (2003).Google Scholar
Estin, Ann L., Economics and the Problem of Divorce, 2 U. Chi. L. Sch. Roundtable 517 (1995).Google Scholar
Estin, Ann L. Family Law Federalism: Divorce and the Constitution, 16 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 381 (2007).Google Scholar
Estin, Ann L. Love and Obligation: Family Law and the Romance of Economics, 36 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 989 (1995).Google Scholar
The Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, Ethical Considerations of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 62(5) Fertility & Sterility 1s, 19s (Supp. 1 1994).Google Scholar
Evans, Jill E., In Search of Paternal Equity: A Father’s Right to Pursue a Claim of Misrepresentation of Fertility, 36 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 1045 (2005).Google Scholar
Eyal, Hedva & Moreno, Adi, “Quiet, Dependent, Nice, and Loyal”: Surrogacy Agencies’ Discourse of International Surrogacy, in Bioethics and Biopolitics in Israel: Socio-legal, Political, and Empirical Analysis 139 (Boas, Hagai et al. eds., 2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Family Law – Contract – Supreme Court of New Jersey Holds That Preembryo Disposition Agreements Are Not Binding When One Party Later Objects, 115 Harv. L. Rev. 701 (2001).Google Scholar
Farese, Katherine, The Bun’s in the Oven, Now What?: How Pre-Birth Orders Promote Clarity in Surrogacy Law (2017), https://ssrn.com/abstract=3088710.Google Scholar
Farnsworth, Allan, Developments in Contract Law During the 1980‘s: The Top Ten, 41 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 203 (1990).Google Scholar
Federle, Katherine H., An Empowerment Perspective on the Rights of Children, 68 Temp. L. Rev. 1585 (1995).Google Scholar
Feinberg, Jessica, Whither the Functional Parent: Revisiting Equitable Parenthood Doctrines in Light of Same-Sex Parents’ Increased Access to Obtaining Formal Legal Parent Status, 83 Brook. L. Rev. 55 (2017).Google Scholar
Feinman, Jay M., The Insurance Relationship as Relational Contract and the “Fairly Debatable” Rule for First-Party Bad Faith, 46 San Diego L. Rev. 553 (2009).Google Scholar
Feinman, Jay M. The Jurisprudence of Classification, 41 Stan. L. Rev. 661, 675 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinman, Jay M. & Gabel, Peter, Contract Law as Ideology, in The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique 373 (Kairys, David ed., 1990).Google Scholar
Feliciano, Tanya, Davis v. Davis: What About Future Disputes?, 26 Conn. L. Rev. 305 (1993).Google Scholar
Field, Martha A., Giving the Mother the Right to Renounce the Contract, in Surrogate Motherhood: Politics and Privacy 97 (Gostin, Larry ed., 1990).Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha L.A., Masking Dependency: The Political Role of Family Rhetoric, 81 Va. L. Rev. 2181 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fineman, Martha The Inevitability of Dependency and the Politics of Subsidy, 9 Stan. L. & Pol’y Rev 89 (1998).Google Scholar
Fink, Howard & Carbone, June, Between Private Ordering and Public Fiat: A New Paradigm for Family Law Decision-making, 5 J.L. & Fam. Stud. 1 (2003).Google Scholar
Fiser, Harvey L. & Garrett, Paula K., It Takes Three, Baby: The Lack of Standard, Legal Definitions of “Best Interest of the Child” and the Right to Contract for Lesbian Potential Parents, 15 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 1 (2008).Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, Wendy A., Maturity, Difference, and Mystery: Children’s Perspectives and the Law, 36 Ariz. L. Rev. 11 (1994).Google Scholar
Fitzgibbon, Susan A., Teaching Important Contracts Concepts: Teaching Unconscionability Through Agreements to Arbitrate Employment Claims, 44 St. Louis L.J. 1401 (2000).Google Scholar
Flannery, Michael T., “Rethinking” Embryo Disposition Upon Divorce, 29 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol’y 233 (2013).Google ScholarPubMed
Folbre, Nancy & Nelson, Julie A., For Love or Money – Or Both? 14 J. Econ. Persp. 123 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forman, Deborah L., Exploring the Boundaries of Families Created with Known Sperm Providers: Who’s In and Who’s Out? 19 U. Pa. J.L. & Soc. Change 42 (2016).Google Scholar
Foster, Henry H. & Freed, Doris J., A Bill of Rights for Children, 6 Fam. L.Q. 343 (1972).Google Scholar
Foster Riley, Margaret & Merrill, Richard A., Regulating Reproductive Genetics: a Review of American Bioethics Commissions and Comparison to the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, 6 Colum. Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 1 (2005).Google Scholar
Franco, Alexandra M., Transhuman Babies and Human Pariahs: Genetic Engineering, Transhumanism, Society and the Law, 37 Child. Legal Rts. J. 185 (2017).Google Scholar
Franklin, Annie & Franklin, Bob, Growing Pains: The Developing Children’s Rights Movement in the UK, in Thatcher’s Children? Politics, Childhood and Society in the 1980s and 1990s 94 (Pilcher, Jane & Wagg, Stephen eds., 1996).Google Scholar
Freeman, Jody, Extending Public Law Norms through Privatization, 116 Harv. L. Rev. 1285 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friend, Beverly, Virgin Territory: Women and Sex in Science Fiction, 14(1)Extrapolation 29 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frommer Brod, Carol, Premarital Agreements and Gender Justice, 6 Yale J.L. & Feminism 229 (1994).Google Scholar
Fuscaldo, Giulianna, Genetic Ties: Are they Morally Binding?, 20(2) Bioethics 64 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fuselier, Bridget M., The Trouble with Putting All of Your Eggs in One Basket: Using a Property Rights Model to Resolve Disputes Over Cryopreserved Pre-Embryos, 14 Tex. J. C.L. & C.R. 143 (2009).Google Scholar
Gamage, David & Kedem, Allon, Commodification and Contract Formation: Placing the Consideration Doctrine on Stronger Foundations, 73 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1299 (2006).Google Scholar
Garrison, Marsha, Autonomy or Community? An Evaluation of Two Models of Parental Obligation, 86 Cal. L. Rev. 41 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, Marsha An Evaluation of Two Models of Parental Obligation, 86 Cal. L. Rev. 41 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, Marsha Book Review: Marriage: The Status of Contract. The Marriage Contract By Lenore J. Weitzman, 131 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1039 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, Marsha Conflicting Interests in Reproductive Autonomy and Their Impact on New Technologies: Issues of Access to Advanced Reproductive Technologies: Regulating Reproduction, 76 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1623 (2008).Google Scholar
Garrison, Marsha Law Making for Baby Making: An Interpretive Approach to the Determination of Legal Parentage, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 835 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrison, Marsha The Technological Family: What’s New and What’s Not, 33 Fam. L.Q. 691 (1999).Google Scholar
Garrison, Marsha Why Terminate Parental Rights?, 35(3) Stanford L. Rev. 423 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gary, Susan N., Posthumously Conceived Heirs: Where the Law Stands and What to Do About It Now, 19 Prob. & Prop. 32 (2005).Google Scholar
Gelmann, Emily, “I’m Just the Oven, It’s Totally Their Bun”: The Power and Necessity of the Federal Government to Regulate Commercial Gestational Surrogacy Arrangements and Protect the Legal Rights of Intended Parents, 32 Women’s Rts. L. Rep. 159 (2011).Google Scholar
Gill, Lauren, Who’s Your Daddy: Defining Paternity Rights in the Context of Free, Private Sperm Donation, 54 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1715 (2013).Google Scholar
Gillers, Shoshana L., A Labor Theory of Legal Parenthood, 110 Yale L.J. 691 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glennon, Theresa, Somebody’s Child: Evaluating the Erosion of the Marital Presumption of Paternity, 102 W. Va. L. Rev. 547 (2000).Google Scholar
Goetz, Charles J. & Scott, Robert E., Principles of Relational Contracts, 67 Va. L. Rev. 1089 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Anne, Determination of Legal Parentage in Egg Donation, Embryo Transplantation, and Gestational Surrogacy Arrangements, 1992 Fam. L.Q. 275 (1992).Google Scholar
Gordley, James Impossibility and Changed and Unforeseen Circumstances, 52 Am. J. Comp. L. 513 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Robert W., Macaulay, Macneil, and the Discovery of Solidarity and Power in Contract Law, 1985 Wis. L. Rev. 565 (1985).Google Scholar
Gottlieb, Gidon, Relationism: Legal Theory for a Relational Society, 50 U. Chi. L. Rev. 567 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Laura P., The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act and Modern Social Policy: The Enforceability of Premarital Agreements Regulating the Ongoing Marriage, 28 Wake Forest L. Rev. 1037 (1993).Google Scholar
Grant, Elyse W., Assessing the Constitutionality of Reproductive Technologies Regulation: A Bioethical Approach, 61 Hastings L.J. 997 (2010).Google Scholar
Green, Daniel, Assessing Parental Rights for Children with Genetic Material from Three Parents, 19 Minn. J.L. Sci. & Tech. 251 (2018).Google Scholar
Greenwood, Anne, Predatory Paternity Establishment: A Critical Analysis of the Acknowledgment of Paternity Process in Texas, 35 St. Mary’s L. J. 421 (2004).Google Scholar
Gregoire, A.T. & Mayer, Robert C., The Impregnators, 16 (1) Fertility & Sterility 130 (1965).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregorio, Joseph, Hatching a Plan Towards Comprehensive Regulations in Egg Donation, 65 DePaul L. Rev. 1283 (2016).Google Scholar
Greif, Geoffrey L., Split Custody: A Beginning Understanding, 13(3) J. Divorce 15 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grilli, Simonetta & Parisi, Rosa, New Family Relationships: Between Bio-genetic and Kinship Rarefaction Scenarios, 31(1) Antroplogia 29 (2016).Google Scholar
Gros, Michelle R., Since You Brought It Up: Is Legally Separating A Child From a Nonbiological Third Party Who Has Essentially Become the Child’s Psychological Parent Really in the Best Interest of the Child?, 44 S.U. L. Rev. 367 (2017).Google Scholar
Gross, Adrienne D., A Man’s Right to Choose: Searching for Remedies in the Face of Unplanned Fatherhood, 55 Drake L. Rev. 1015 (2007).Google Scholar
Grossman, Joanna L. Parentage without Gender, 17 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 717 (2016).Google Scholar
Grossman, Joanna L. The New Illegitimacy: Tying Parentage to Marital Status for Lesbian Co-Parents, 20 Am. U. J. Gender, Soc. Pol’y & L. 671 (2012).Google Scholar
Hadfield, Gillian K., An Expressive Theory of Contract: From Feminist Dilemmas to a Reconceptualization of Rational Choice in Contract Law, 146 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1235 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hafen, Bruce C., Children’s Liberation and the New Egalitarianism: Some Reservations About Abandoning Youth to Their “Rights,” in Child Law 113 (Krause, Harry D. ed., 1992).Google Scholar
Hafen, Bruce C. Individualism and Autonomy in Family Law: The Waning of Belonging, 1991 BYU L. Rev. 1 (1991).Google Scholar
Hafen, Bruce C. The Constitutional Status of Marriage, Kinship, and Sexual Privacy – Balancing the Individual and Social Interests, 81 Mich. L. Rev. 463 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Bruce, Regulation of International Surrogacy Arrangements: Do We Regulate the Market, or Fix the Real Problems?, 36 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 501 (2013).Google Scholar
Halewood, Peter, Law’s Bodies: Disembodiment and the Structure of Liberal Property Rights, 81 Iowa L. Rev. 1331 (1996).Google Scholar
Hall, John G., Child Support Supported: Policy Trumps Equity in Martin v. Pierce Despite Fraud and a Controversial Amendment to the Paternity Code, 61 Ark. L. Rev. 571 (2008).Google Scholar
Hanson, Jon D. & Kysar, Douglas A., Taking Behavioralism Seriously: The Problem of Market Manipulation, 74 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 630 (1999).Google Scholar
Harlow, Holly J., Paternalism Without Paternity: Discrimination Against Single Women Seeking Artificial Insemination by Donor, 6 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women’s Stud. 173 (1996).Google Scholar
Harrer, Herbert, Aspects of Failed Family Planning in the United States of America and Germany, 15 J. Leg. Med. 89 (1994).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, John, Assisted Reproductive Technological Blunders (ARTBs), 29(4) J. Med. Eth. 205 (2003).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, Leslie J., A New Paternity Law for the Twenty-First Century: Of Biology, Social Function, Children’s Interests, and Betrayal, 44 Willamette L. Rev. 297 (2007).Google Scholar
Harris, Leslie J. Changing American State and Federal Childcare Laws: Obergefell’s Ambiguous Impact on Legal Parentage, 92 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 55 (2017).Google Scholar
Harris, Leslie J. Reconsidering the Criteria for Legal Fatherhood, 1996 Utah L. Rev. 461 (1996).Google Scholar
Harris, Leslie J. Voluntary Acknowledgments of Parentage for Same-Sex Couples, 20 J. Gender, Soc. Pol’y & L. 467 (2012).Google Scholar
Hart, Herbert L. A., Legal and Moral Obligation, in Essays in Moral Philosophy 82 (Melden, Abraham I. ed., 1958).Google Scholar
Hartog, Hendrik, Marital Exits and Marital Expectations in Nineteenth Century America, 80 Geo. L.J. 95 (1991).Google Scholar
Haut, Mark C., Divorce and the Disposition of Frozen Embryos, 28 Hofstra L. Rev. 493, 495 (1999).Google Scholar
Hawkins, Jim, Doctors as Bankers: Evidence from Fertility Markets, 84 Tul. L. Rev. 841 (2010).Google Scholar
Hawkins, Jim Selling ART: An Empirical Assessment of Advertising on Fertility Clinics’ Websites, 88 Ind. L.J. 1147 (2013).Google Scholar
Hazeldean, Susan, Anchoring More Than Babies: Children’s Rights After Obergefell v. Hodges, 38 Cardozo L. Rev. 1397 (2017).Google Scholar
Healy, Nicole M., Beyond Surrogacy: Gestational Parenting Agreements Under California Law, 1 UCLA Women’s L.J. 89 (1991).Google Scholar
Heifetz, Hollinger J., From Coitus to Commerce: Legal and Social Consequences of Noncoital Reproduction, 18 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 865 (1985).Google Scholar
Henaghan, Mark, International Surrogacy Trends: How Family Law Is Coping, 7 Austl. J. Adoption 1 (2013).Google Scholar
Hendricks, Jennifer S., Essentially a Mother, 13 Wm. & Mary J. of Women & L. 429 (2007).Google Scholar
Hendricks, Jennifer S. Fathers and Feminism: The Case Against Genetic Entitlement, 91 Tul. L. Rev. 473 (2017).Google Scholar
Hendricks, Jennifer S. Genetic Essentialism in Family Law, 26 Health Matrix 109 (2016).Google ScholarPubMed
Henry, Vickie L., A Tale of Three Women: A Survey of the Rights and Responsibilities of Unmarried Women Who Conceive by Alternative Insemination and a Model for Legislative Reform, 19 Am. J.L. & Med. 285 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, John L. What Does It Mean to Be a “Parent”? The Claims of Biology as the Basis for Parental Rights, 66 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 353 (1991).Google ScholarPubMed
Hillman, Robert A., Court Adjustment of Long-Term Contracts: An Analysis under Modern Contract Law, 1987 Duke L.J. 1 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Suzanne, Contested Commodities at Both Ends of Life: Buying and Selling Gametes, Embryos, and Body Tissues, 11 Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 263 (2001).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollandsworth, Marla J., Gay Men Creating Families Through Surro-Gay Arrangements: A Paradigm for Reproductive Freedom, 3 Am. U. J. Gender & L. 183 (1995).Google Scholar
Holman Loy, Sarah, Responding to Reber: The Disposition of Pre-Embryos Following Divorce in Pennsylvania, 122 Penn St. L. Rev. 545 (2018).Google Scholar
Hopkins, Laura et al., Medical Tourism Today: What Is the State of Existing Knowledge?, 31 J. Pub. Health Pol’y 185 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horsburgh, Beverly, Jewish Women, Black Women: Guarding Against the Oppression of Surrogacy, 8 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 29 (1993).Google Scholar
Horstmeyer, Kira, Putting Your Eggs in Someone Else’s Basket: Inserting Uniformity into the Uniform Parentage Act’s Treatment of Assisted Reproduction, 64 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 671 (2007).Google Scholar
Howe, Ruth-Arlene W., Parenthood in the United States, in Cross Currents: Family Law and Policy in the US and England 187 (Eekelaar, John et al. eds., 2000).Google Scholar
Howell, Shirley Darby, The Frozen Embryo: Scholarly Theories, Case Law, and Proposed State Regulation, 14 DePaul J. Health Care L. 407 (2013).Google Scholar
Hubin, Donald C., Daddy Dilemmas: Untangling the Puzzles of Paternity, 13 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 29 (2003).Google Scholar
Hughes, Beverley, Openness and Contact in Adoption: A Child-Centred Perspective, 25 Br. J. Social Wk. 720 (1995).Google Scholar
Hunter, Howard O., An Essay on Contract and Status: Race, Marriage, and the Meretricious Spouse, 64 Va. L. Rev. 1039 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, Jules Adrienne & Nicola, Fernanda G., The Contractualization of Family Law in the United States, 62 Am. J. Comp. L. 151 (2014).Google Scholar
Hurwitz, Ilana, Collaborative Reproduction: Finding the Child in the Maze of Legal Motherhood, 33 Conn. L. Rev. 127 (2000).Google Scholar
Ikemoto, Lisa C., Reproductive Tourism: Equality Concerns in the Global Market for Fertility Services, 27 L. & Ineq. 277 (2009).Google Scholar
Ikemoto, Lisa C. The In/Fertile, the Too Fertile, and the Dysfertile, 47 Hastings L.J. 1007 (1996).Google Scholar
Ince, Susan, Inside the Surrogacy Industry, in Family Matters: Readings on Family Lives and the Law 104 (Minow, Martha ed., 1993).Google Scholar
Issa, Matthew A., Guaranteeing Marriage Rights: Examining the Clash Between Same-Sex Adoption and Religious Freedom, 18 Geo. J. Gender & L. 207 (2017).Google Scholar
Jacobs, Melanie B., Applying Intent-Based Parentage Principles to Nonlegal Lesbian Coparents 25 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 433 (2005).Google Scholar
Jacobs, Melanie B. Intentional Parenthood’s Influence: Rethinking Procreative Autonomy and Federal Paternity Establishment Policy, 20 Am. U. J. Gender. Soc. Pol’y & L. 489 (2012).Google Scholar
Jacobs, Melanie B. Micah Has One Mommy and One Legal Stranger: Adjudicating Maternity for Nonbiological Lesbian Coparents, 50 Buff. L. Rev. 341 (2002).Google Scholar
Jacobs, Melanie B. My Two Dads: Disaggregating Biological and Social Paternity, 38 Ariz. St. L.J. 809 (2006).Google Scholar
Jacobs, Melanie B. More Parents, More Money: Reflections on the Financial Implications of Multiple Parentage, 16 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 217 (2010).Google Scholar
Jacobs, Melanie B. Overcoming the Marital Presumption, 50 Fam. Ct. Rev. 289 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Melanie B. Parental Parity: Intentional Parenthood’s Promise, 64 Buff. L. Rev. 465 (2016).Google Scholar
Jacobs, Melanie B. When Daddy Doesn’t Want to Be Daddy Anymore: An Argument Against Paternity Fraud Claims, 16 Yale J.L. & Feminism 193 (2004).Google Scholar
Jacobs, Melanie B. Why Just Two? Disaggregating Traditional Parental Rights and Responsibilities to Recognize Multiple Parents, 9 J. L. Fam. Stud. 309 (2007).Google Scholar
Jaeger, Carinne, Yours, Mine, or Ours: Resolving Frozen Embryo Disputes Through Genetics, 40 Seattle U. L. Rev. 1141 (2017).Google Scholar
Jain, Tarun, Socioeconomic and Racial Disparities Among Infertility Patients Seeking Care, 85 Fertility & Sterility 876 (2006).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jensen, Brent J., Artificial Insemination and the Law, 1982 BYU L. Rev. 935 (1982).Google ScholarPubMed
Johnson, Erik W., Frozen Embryos: Determining Disposition Through Contract, 55 Rutgers L. Rev. 793 (2003).Google Scholar
Johnson, Naomi D., Excess Embryos: Is Embryo Adoption a New Solution or a Temporary Fix?, 68 Brook. L. Rev. 853 (2003).Google ScholarPubMed
Johnston, Janet R., Ongoing Postdivorce Conflict: Effects on Children of Joint Custody and Frequent Access, 59(4) Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 576 (1989).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, Caroline & Holme, Ingrid, Relatively (im) Material: MtDNA and Genetic Relatedness in Law and Policy, 9(4) Life Sciences, Society and Policy (2013), http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2195–7819-9–4#page-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joslin, Courtney G., Marriage, Biology, and Federal Benefits, 98 Iowa L. Rev. 1467 (2013).Google Scholar
Joslin, Courtney G. Nurturing Parenthood Through the UPA (2017), 127 Yale L.J. F. 589 (2018).Google Scholar
Joslin, Courtney G. Protecting Children(?): Marriage, Gender, and Assisted Reproductive Technology, 83 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1177 (2010).Google Scholar
Joslin, Courtney G. Travel Insurance: Protecting Lesbian and Gay Parent Families Across State Lines, 4 Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev. 31 (2010).Google Scholar
Kachroo, Gaytri, Mapping Alimony: From Status to Contract and Beyond, 5 Pierce L. Rev. 163 (2007).Google Scholar
Kahn, Jaclyn N., The Legal Minefield of Two Mommies and a Baby: Determining Legal Motherhood through Genetics, 16 Fla. Coastal L. Rev. 245 (2015).Google Scholar
Kanics, Jyothi, Preventing and Addressing Statelessness in the Context of International Surrogacy Arrangements, 19 Tilburg L. Rev. 117 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Lori et al., Issues of Split Custody: Siblings Separated by Divorce, 16(3–4)J. Divorce & Remarriage 253 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Lori Splitting Custody of Children Between Parents: Impact on the Sibling System, 74(3)Families in Soc. 131 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpin, Isabel & Ellison, David, Reproduction Without Women: Frankenstein and the Legal Prohibition Against Human Modification, in Feminism and the Body: Interdisciplinary Perspectives 29 (Catherine, Kevin ed., 2009).Google Scholar
Kastely, Amy H., Cogs or Cyborgs? Blasphemy and Irony in Contract Theories, 90 Nw. U. L. Rev. 132 (1995).Google Scholar
Katz, Donna A., My Egg, Your Sperm, Whose Preembryo? A Proposal for Deciding Which Party Receives Custody of Frozen Preembryos, 5 Va. J. Soc. Pol’y, &, L. 623 (1998).Google ScholarPubMed
Katz, Katheryn D., Ghost Mothers: Human Egg Donation and the Legacy of the Past, 57 Alb. L. Rev. 733 (1994).Google ScholarPubMed
Katz, Katheryn D. Snowflake Adoptions and Orphan Embryos: The Legal Implications of Embryo Donation, 18 Wis. Women’s L.J. 179 (2003).Google ScholarPubMed
Katz-Rothman, Barbara, Reproductive Technology and the Commodification of Life, in Embryos, Ethics, and Women’s Rights: Exploring the New Reproductive Technologies 95 (Hoffman, Baruch E. et al. eds., 1988).Google Scholar
Kavanagh Matthew, M., Rewriting the Legal Family: Beyond Exclusivity to a Care-Based Standard, 16 Yale J. L. & Feminism 83 (2004).Google Scholar
Kazinetz, Tricia, You Can’t Have One Without the Other: Why the Legalization of Same Sex Marriage Created a Need for Courts to Have Discretion in Granting Legal Parentage to More than Two Individuals, 24 Widener L. Rev. 179 (2018).Google Scholar
Kearney, Mary K., Identifying Sperm and Egg Donors: Opening Pandora’s Box, 13 J.L. & Fam. Stud. 215 (2011).Google Scholar
Kelly, Fiona, Multiple-Parent Families under British Columbia’s New Family Law Act: A Challenge to the Supremacy of the Nuclear Family or a Method by Which to Preserve Biological Ties and Opposite-Sex Parenting, 47 U.B.C. L. Rev. 565 (2014).Google Scholar
Kelly, Fiona Reforming Parenthood: The Assignment of Legal Parentage Within Planned Lesbian Families, 40 Ottawa L. Rev. 185 (2008–2009).Google Scholar
Kelly, Joan B., Developing Beneficial Parenting Plan Models for Children Following Separation and Divorce, 19 J. Am. Acad. Matrimonial Law. 237 (2005).Google Scholar
Kennedy, Duncan, Distributive and Paternalist Motives in Contract and Tort Law, with Special Reference to Compulsory Terms and Unequal Bargaining Power, 41 Md. L. Rev. 563 (1982).Google Scholar
Kerian, Christine L., Surrogacy: A Last Resort Alternative for Infertile Women or a Commodification of Women’s Bodies and Children?, 12 Wis. Women’s L.J. 113 (1997).Google ScholarPubMed
Ketchum Sara, A., Selling Babies and Selling Bodies, in Feminist Perspectives in Medical Ethics 285 (Holmes, Helen B. & Purdy, Laura M. eds., 1992).Google Scholar
Kethcam, Orman W., Richard F. Jr. Babcock, Statutory Standards for the Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, 29 Rutgers L. Rev. 530 (1976).Google Scholar
Keyes, Mary & Burns, Kylie, Contract and the Family: Whither Intention, 26 Melb. U. L. Rev. 577 (2002).Google Scholar
Khuu, Neo, Obergefell v. Hodges: Kinship Formation, Interest Convergence, and the Future of LGBTQ Rights, 64 UCLA L. Rev. 184 (2017).Google Scholar
Kim, Nancy, Mistakes, Changed Circumstances and Intent, 56 U. Kan. L. Rev. 473 (2008).Google Scholar
Kindregan, Charles P., Collaborative Reproduction and Rethinking Parentage, 21 J. Am. Acad. Matrimonial Law 43 (2008).Google Scholar
Kindregan, Charles P., Jr. & McBrien, Maureen, Embryo Donation: Unresolved Legal Issues in the Transfer of Surplus Cryopreserved Embryos, 49 Vill. L. Rev. 169 (2004).Google ScholarPubMed
Kindregan, Charles P., Jr. & McBrien, Maureen Posthumous Reproduction, 39 Fam. L.Q. 579 (2005).Google ScholarPubMed
Kindregan, Charles P. & Snyder, Steven H., Clarifying the Law of Art: The New American Bar Association Model Act Governing Assisted Reproductive Technology, 42 Fam. L.Q. 203 (2008).Google Scholar
Kindregan, Charles P. & White, Danielle, International Fertility Tourism: The Potential for Stateless Children in Cross-Border Commercial Surrogacy Arrangements, 36 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 527 (2013).Google Scholar
King, Alexa E., Solomon Revisited: Assigning Parenthood in the Context of Collaborative Reproduction, 5 UCLA Women’s L.J. 329 (1995).Google Scholar
Kisthardt, Mary Kay & Roane, Richard A., Who Is a Parent and Who Is a Child in a Same-Sex Family – Legislative and Judicial Issues for LGBT Families Post-Separation, Part II: The U.S. Perspective, 30 J. Am. Acad. Matrimonial Law 55 (2017).Google Scholar
Klaff, Ramsay Laing, The Tender Years Doctrine: A Defense, 70 Cal. L. Rev. 335 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline Pruett, Marsha et al., Critical Aspects of Parenting Plans for Young Children Interjecting Data into the Debate about Overnights, 42(1) Fam. Ct. Rev. 39 (2003).Google Scholar
Kluge, Elike-Henner W., Sterilization of the Mentally Severely Handicapped: A Violation of the Right to Have Children?, in Should Parents Be Licensed? Debating the Issues 243 (Tittle, Peg ed., 2004).Google Scholar
Knapland, Kristine S., Synthetic Cells, Synthetic Life, and Inheritance, 45 Val. U. L. Rev. 1361 (2011).Google Scholar
Knoppers, Bartha M. & LeBris, Sonia, Recent Advances in Medically Assisted Conception: Legal, Ethical and Social Issues, 17 Am. J. L. & Med. 329 (1991).Google ScholarPubMed
Koerner, Alfred, Medicolegal Considerations in Artificial Insemination, 8 La. L. Rev. 484 (1948).Google Scholar
Kolinsky, Heather, The Intended Parent: The Power and Problems Inherent in Designating and Determining Intent in the Context of Parental Rights, 119 Penn St. L. Rev. 801 (2015).Google Scholar
Kolinsky, Heather The Ties That Bind: Reevaluating the Role of Legal Presumptions of Paternity, 48 Loy. L. A. L. Rev. 223 (2014).Google Scholar
Koll, Perri, The Use of the Intent Doctrine to Expand the Rights of Intended Homosexual Male Parents in Surrogacy Custody Disputes, 18 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 199 (2011).Google Scholar
Kopson, Mark S., Medical Tourism: Implications for Providers and Plans, 3 J. Health & Life Sci. L. 147 (2010)Google Scholar
Korobkin, Russell, A “Traditional” and “Behavioral” Law-and-Economics Analysis of Williams v. Walker- Thomas Furniture Company, 26 U. Haw. L. Rev. 441 (2004).Google Scholar
Kovach, Rachel L., Sorry Daddy – Your Time Is Up: Rebutting the Presumption of Paternity in Louisiana, 56 Loy. L. Rev. 651 (2010).Google Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberly D., Altruism and Intermediation in the Market for Babies, 66 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 203 (2009).Google Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberly D. For Love or Money? Defining Relationships in Law and Life: The Dark Side of Commodification Critiques: Politics and Elitism in Standardized Testing, 35 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 349 (2011).Google Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberly D. Sunny Samaritans and Egomaniacs: Price-Fixing in the Gamete Market, 72 Law & Contemp. Probs. 59 (2009).Google Scholar
Krawiec, Kimberly D. Why We Should Ignore the “Octomom,” 104 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 120 (2009).Google Scholar
Kritchevsky, Barbara, The Unmarried Woman’s Right to Artificial Insemination: A Call for an Expanded Definition of Family, 4 Harv. Women’s L.J. 1 (1981).Google Scholar
Kumar, Manasi, Birthing a Contract: A Critical Evaluation of Commercial Surrogacy in India through a Contractual Framework, 1(3) Indian L. Rev. 206 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuo, Lee, Lessons Learned from Great Britain’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Act: Should the United States Regulate the Fate of Unused Frozen Embryos?, 19 Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 1027 (1997).Google ScholarPubMed
Labadie-Jackson, Glenda, The Reproductive Rights of Latinas and Commercial Surrogacy Contracts – English Translation, 14 Tex. Hisp. J.L. & Pol’y 49 (2008).Google Scholar
Ladomato, Dominique, Protecting Traditional Surrogacy Contracting Through Fee Payment Regulation, 23 Hastings Women’s L.J. 245 (2012).Google Scholar
LaGatta, Kellie, The Frozen Embryo Debate Heats Up: A Call for Federal Regulation and Legislation, 4 Fl. Coastal L.J. 99 (2002).Google Scholar
Lambert, Jessica L., Developing a Legal Framework for Resolving Disputes Between “Adoptive Parents” of Frozen Embryos: A Comparison to Resolutions of Divorce Disputes Between Progenitors, 49 B.C. L. Rev. 529 (2008).Google Scholar
Landes, Elisabeth M. & Posner, Richard A., The Economics of the Baby Shortage, 7 J. Legal Stud. 323 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, Mellisa, Ethical Issues in Surrogacy Arrangements, in Surrogate Motherhood: International Perspectives 127 (Rachel, Cook et al. eds., 2003).Google Scholar
Laquer Estin, Ann, Families Across Borders: The Hague Children’s Conventions and the Case for International Family Law in the United States, 62 Fla. L. Rev. 47 (2010).Google Scholar
Larkey, Amy M., Redefining Motherhood: Determining Legal Maternity in Gestational Surrogacy Arrangements, 51 Drake L. Rev. 605 (2003).Google ScholarPubMed
Laruelle, C. et al., Anonymity and Secrecy Options of Recipient Couples and Donors, and Ethnic Origin Influence in Three Types of Oocyte Donation, 26(2) Hum. Reprod. 382 (2011).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lascarides, Denise E., A Plea for the Enforceability of Gestational Surrogacy Contracts, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 1221 (1997).Google ScholarPubMed
Laufer-Ukeles, Pamela, Money, Caregiving, and Kinship: Should Paid Caregivers Be Allowed to Obtain De Facto Parental Status? 74 Mo. L. Rev. 25 (2009).Google Scholar
Laufer-Ukeles, Pamela Mothering for Money: Regulating Commercial Intimacy, 88 Ind. L.J. 1223 (2013).Google Scholar
Laufer-Ukeles, Pamela The Lost Children: When the Right to Children Conflicts with the Rights of Children, 8 Law & Ethics Hum. Rts. 219 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laufer-Ukeles, Pamela & Blecher-Prigat, Ayelet, Between Function and Form: Towards a Differentiated Model of Functional Parenthood, 20 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 419 (2013).Google Scholar
Leckey, Robert, Relational Contract and Other Models of Marriage, 40 Osgoode Hall L. J. 1 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leckey, Robert “Where the Parents Are of the Same Sex”: Quebec’s Reforms to Filiation, 23 Int’l J.L. Pol’y & Fam. 62 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledebur, Lawrence F., Recent Decision, Doornbos v. Doornbos, 139 N.E.2d 844 (Ill. Appl. Ct. 1954), 43 Geo. L.J. 517 (1955).Google Scholar
Lee, Ruby L., New Trends in Global Outsourcing of Commercial Surrogacy: A Call for Regulation, 20 Hastings Women’s L.J. 275 (2009).Google Scholar
Leff, Arthur A., Unconscionability and the Crowd-Consumers and the Common Law Tradition, 31 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 349 (1969).Google Scholar
Leisner, Amy B., Parentage Disputes in the Age of Mitochondrial Replacement Therapy, 104 Geo. L.J. 413 (2016).Google Scholar
Levi, Robin et al., Creating the “Bad Mother”: How the U.S. Approach to Pregnancy in Prisons Violates the Right to be a Mother, 18 UCLA Women’s L.J. 1 (2010).Google Scholar
Lewis, Browne, Two Fathers, One Dad: Allocating the Paternal Obligations Between the Men Involved in the Artificial Insemination Process, 13 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 949 (2009).Google Scholar
Lezin, Justyn, Note, (Mis)Conceptions: Unjust Limitations on Legally Unmarried Women’s Access to Reproductive Technology and Their Use of Known Donors, 14 Hastings Women’s L.J. 185 (2003).Google Scholar
Lieber, Katherine B., Selling the Womb: Can the Feminist Critique of Surrogacy Be Answered? 68 Ind. L.J. 205 (1992).Google ScholarPubMed
Liebler, Raizel, Are You My Parent – Are You My Child – The Role of Genetics and Race in Defining Relationships after Reproductive Technological Mistakes, 5 DePaul J. Health Care L. 15 (2002).Google Scholar
Lifshitz, Shahar, Distress Exploitation Contracts in the Shadow of No Duty to Rescue, 86 N.C. L. Rev. 315 (2008).Google Scholar
Lifshitz, Shahar The Best Interests of the Child and Spousal Laws, in The Case for the Child: Towards a New Agenda 45 (Ronen, Yair & Greenbaum, Charles W. eds., 2008).Google Scholar
Lilith, Ryiah, The G.I.F.T. of Two Biological and Legal Mothers, 9 Am. U. J. Gender, Soc. Pol’y & L. 207 (2001).Google Scholar
Lin, Olivia, Rehabilitating Bioethics: Recontextualizing In Vitro Fertilization Outside Contractual Autonomy, 54 Duke L.J. 485 (2004).Google ScholarPubMed
Lin, Tina, Born Lost: Stateless Children in International Surrogacy Arrangements, 21 Cardozo J. Int’l & Comp. L. 545 (2013).Google Scholar
Linzer, Peter & Tidwell, Patricia A., The Flesh-Colored Band Aid-Contracts, Feminism, Dialogue, and Norms, 28 Hous. L. Rev. 791 (1991).Google Scholar
LoGatto, Anthony F., Artificial Insemination: I – Legal Aspects, 1 Cath. Law. 172 (1955).Google Scholar
Loken, Gregory A., Gratitude and the Map of Moral Duties Toward Children, 31 Ariz. St. L.J. 1121 (1999).Google Scholar
Loken, Gregory A. The New “Extended Family” – “De Facto” Parenthood and Standing Under Chapter 2, 2001 BYU L. Rev. 1045 (2001).Google Scholar
London, Catherine, Advancing a Surrogate-Focused Model of Gestational Surrogacy Contracts, 18 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 391 (2012).Google Scholar
Looking for a Family Resemblance: The Limits of the Functional Approach to the Legal Definition of Family, 104 Harv. L. Rev. 1640 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorber, Judith, Choice, Gift, or Patriarchal Bargain? Women’s Consent to In Vitro Fertilization in Male Infertility, in Feminist Perspectives in Medical Ethics 169 (Holmes, Helen B. & Purdy, Laura M. eds., 1992).Google Scholar
Lorio, Kathryn V., Successions and Donations: A Symposium: From Cradle to Tomb: Estate Planning Considerations of the New Procreation, 57 La. L. Rev. 27 (1996).Google Scholar
Lowe, N.V., The Allocation of Parental Rights and Responsibilities – The Position in England and Wales, 39 Fam. L.Q. 267 (2005).Google Scholar
Lowenstein, Ariela, Temporary Single Parenthood – The Case of Prisoners’ Families, 35(1) Family Relations 79 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowery Gitchell, Rita, Should Legal Precedent Based on Old, Flawed, Scientific Analysis Regarding When Life Begins, Continue to Apply to Parental Disputes Over the Fate of Frozen Embryos, When There Are Now Scientifically Known and Observed Facts Proving Life Begins at Fertilization?, 20 DePaul J. Health Care L. (2018), http://via.library.depaul.edu/jhcl/vol20/iss1/2.Google Scholar
Mabry, Cynthia R., “Who Is My Real Father?” – The Delicate Task of Identifying a Father and Parenting Children Created From an in Vitro Mix-Up, 18 Nat’l Black L.J. 1 (2004).Google Scholar
Mabry, Cynthia R. Who Is the Baby’s Daddy (And Why Is It Important for the Child to Know)?, 34 U. Balt. L. Rev. 211 (2004).Google Scholar
Macaulay, Stewart, Renegotiations and Settlements: Dr. Pangloss’s Notes on the Margins of David Campbell’s Papers, 29 Cardozo L. Rev. 261 (2007).Google Scholar
Macaulay, Stuart, Non-Contractual Relations in Business: A Preliminary Study, 28 Am. Sociol. Rev. 55 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macklin, Ruth, Is There Anything Wrong with Surrogate Motherhood? An Ethical Analysis, in Surrogate Motherhood: Politics and Privacy 136 (Gostin, Larry ed., 1990).Google Scholar
Macneil, Ian R., Contracts: Adjustment of Long-Term Economic Relations under Classical, Neoclassical and Relational Contract Law, 72 Nw. U. L. Rev. 854 (1978).Google Scholar
Macneil, Ian R. Relational Contract Theory: Challenges and Queries, 94 Nw. U.L. Rev. 877 (2000).Google Scholar
Macneil, Ian R. Restatement (Second) of Contracts and Presentiation, 60 Va. L. Rev. 589 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, Margaret M., Support and Custody Aspects of the Stepparent-Child Relationship, 70 Cornell L. Rev. 38 (1984).Google Scholar
Maldonado, Solangel, Beyond Economic Fatherhood: Encouraging Divorced Fathers to Parent, 153 U. Pa. L. Rev.921 (2005).Google Scholar
Maldonado, Solangel When Father (or Mother) Doesn’t Know Best: Quasi-Parents and Parental Deference After Troxel v. Granville, 88 Iowa L. Rev. 865 (2003).Google Scholar
Manternach, Maggie, Where Is My Other Mommy? Applying the Presumed Father Provision of the Uniform Parentage Act to Recognize the Rights of Lesbian Mothers and Their Children, 9 J. Gender Race & Just. 385 (2005).Google Scholar
Marcus, Tali, Cutting Off the Umbilical Cord – Reflections on the Possibility to Sever the Parental Bond, 25 J. L. & Pol’y 583 (2016–17).Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel, Artificial Insemination from Donor (AID) – From Status to Contract and Back Again?, 21(1) Boston U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 69 (2015).Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel Bridging the Gap Between Intent and Status: A New Framework for Modern Parentage, 15(1) Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 1 (2016).Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel Determining Legal Parenthood by Agreement as a Possible Solution to the Challenges of the New Era, 5 Haifa Law Review 553 (2012) (Heb.).Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel From Baby M to Baby M(anji): Regulating International Surrogacy Agreements, 24(1) J. L. & Pol’y 41 (2016).Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel In Defense of Surrogacy Agreements: A Modern Contract Law Perspective, 20 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 423 (2014).Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel Intentional Parenthood: A Solution to the Plight of Same-Sex Partners Striving for Legal Recognition as Parents, 12 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 39 (2013).Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel Legal Parenthood – Law and Justice, 47 Heb. U. L.Rev. 131 (2018) (Heb.), http://law.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/law/files/_-_vrvt_mshptyt.pdf.Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel Redefining Parenthood – From Genetic Essentialism to Intentional Parenthood (April 22, 2011), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1819023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel Scarce Medical Resources – Parenthood at Every Age, in Every Case and Subsidized By the State?, 9 Netanya Academic College L. Rev. 191 (2014) (Heb.), www.netanya.ac.il/Schools/LawSchool/Journal/Documents/Yehezkel-Margalit.pdf.Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel The Rise, Fall and Rise Again of the Genetic Foundation for Legal Parentage Determination, 3 J. Health L. & Bioethics 125 (2010) (Heb.), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2232721.Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel Towards Establishing Parenthood by Agreement in Jewish Law, 26 (2) Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 647 (2018).Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel & John, Loike, Follicular Transplants and Motherhood (unpublished manuscript, on file with author).Google Scholar
Margalit, Yehezkel & John, Loike The New Frontier of Advanced Reproductive Technology: Reevaluating Modern Legal Parenthood, 37 Harv. J. L. & Gender 107 (2014).Google Scholar
Marold, Meagan R., Ice, Ice, Baby! The Division of Frozen Embryos at the Time of Divorce, 25 Hastings Women’s L.J. 179 (2014).Google Scholar
Marrow, Paul B., Squeezing Subjectivity from the Doctrine of Unconscionability, 53 Clev. St. L. Rev. 187 (2005–2006).Google Scholar
Marston, , Allison, A., Planning for Love: The Politics of Prenuptial Agreements, 49 Stan. L. Rev. 887 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Patricia A. & Lagod, Martin L., The Human Preembryo, the Progenitors, and the State: Toward a Dynamic Theory of Status, Rights, and Research Policy, 5 High Tech. L.J. 257 (1990).Google Scholar
Marvel, Stu, The Evolution of Plural Parentage: Applying Vulnerability Theory to Polygamy and Same-Sex Marriage, 64 Emory L.J. 2047 (2015).Google Scholar
Mason, Mary A., The Modern American Stepfamily: Problems and Possibilities, in All Our Families: New Policies for a New Century 96 (Mason, Mary A. et al. eds., 1998).Google Scholar
Massie, Ann M., Symposium on John A. Robertson’s Children of Choice: Regulating Choice: A Constitutional Law Response to Professor John A. Robertson’s Children of Choice, 52 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 135 (1995).Google Scholar
Masters, Lindsay, Same-Sex Adoption in the Wake of Obergefell: How Recent Michigan Legislation Runs Counter to the First Amendment Rights of Prospective Adoptive Parents, 94 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 99 (2017).Google Scholar
McCarthy, Francis B., Parents, Children, and the Courts: Article: The Confused Constitutional Status and Meaning of Parental Rights, 22 Ga. L. Rev. 975 (1988).Google Scholar
McGinnis, Sarah, You Are Not the Father: How State Paternity Laws Protect (and Fail to Protect) the Best Interests of Children, 16 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 311 (2008).Google Scholar
McGuire, Maureen & Alexander, Nancy J., Artificial Insemination of Single Women, 43(2) Fertility & Sterility 182 (1985).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKendrick, Ewan, The Regulation of Long-Term Contracts in English Law, in Good Faith and Fault in Contract Law 305 (Jack, Beatson & Friedmann, Daniel eds., 1995).Google Scholar
McLachlan, Hugh V. & Swales, J. Kim, Commercial Surrogate Motherhood and the Alleged Commodification of Children: A Defense of Legally Enforceable Contracts, 72 Law & Contemp. Probs. 91 (2009).Google Scholar
McLeod, Carolyn & Botterell, Andrew, A Hague Convention on Contract Pregnancy (Or “Surrogacy”): Avoiding Ethical Inconsistencies with the Convention on Adoption, 7 Int’l J. Feminist Approaches Bioethics 219 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melli, Marygold S., The American Law Institute Principles of Family Dissolution, the Approximation Rule and Shared-Parenting, 25 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 347 (2005).Google Scholar
Meyer, David D., Parenthood in a Time of Transition: Tensions Between Legal, Biological, and Social Conceptions of Parenthood, 54 Am. J. Comp. L. 125 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, David D. Reforming Parentage Laws: The Constitutionality of “Best Interests” Parentage, 14 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 857 (2006).Google Scholar
Meyer, David D. The Constitutional Rights of Non-Custodial Parents, 34 Hofstra L. Rev. 1461 (2006).Google Scholar
Miller, Anthony, Baseline, Bright-line, Best Interests: A Pragmatic Approach for California to Provide Certainty in Determining Parentage, 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 637 (2003).Google Scholar
Miller, Anthony The Case for the Genetic Parent: Stanley, Quilloin, Caban, Lehr, and Michael H. Revisited, 53 Loy. L. Rev. 395 (2007).Google Scholar
Miller, Cheryl, Child Custody and Visitation Rights Arising from Same-Sex Relationship, 80 A.L.R.5th 1 (2009).Google Scholar
Milot, Lisa, Restitching the American Marital Quilt: Untangling Marriage from the Nuclear Family, 87 Va. L. Rev. 701 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H., Divorce Bargaining: The Limits on Private Ordering, in The Resolution of Family Conflict: Comparative Legal Perspectives 364 (Eekelaar, John M. & Katz, Sanford N. eds., 1984).Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H. The Limits on Private Ordering, 18 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 1015 (1985).Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H. et al., Private Ordering Revisited: What Custodial Arrangements Are Parents Negotiating?, in Divorce Reform at the Crossroads 37 (Sugarman, Stephen D. & Hill Kay, Herma eds., 1990).Google Scholar
Mnookin, Robert H. & Kornhauser, Lewis, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Divorce, 88 Yale L.J. 950 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohapatra, Seema, Achieving Reproductive Justice in the International Surrogacy Market, 21 Annals Health L. 191 (2010).Google Scholar
Mohapatra, Seema Adopting an International Convention on Surrogacy – A Lesson from Intercountry Adoption, 13 Loy. U. Chi. Int’l L. Rev. 25 (2015).Google Scholar
Mohapatra, Seema Changing American State and Federal Childcare Laws: Assisted Reproduction Inequality and Marriage Equality, 92 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 87 (2017).Google Scholar
Mohapatra, Seema Stateless Babies & Adoption Scams: A Bioethical Analysis of International Commercial Surrogacy, 30 Berkeley J. Int’l L. 412 (2012).Google Scholar
Mohapatra, Seema States of Confusion: Regulation of Surrogacy in the United States, in Globalisation and Commodification of the Human Body: A Cannibal Market (Rainhorn, J.D. & El, S. Boudamoussi, eds., 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moller Okin, Susan, Feminism, the Individual and Contract Theory, 100 Ethics 658 (1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Laura E. et al., The Effects of Poverty, Race, and Family Structure on U.S. Children’s Health: Data from the NHIS, 1978 through 1980 and 1989 through 1991, 86 (10) Am. J. Pub. Health (1996).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morant, Blake D., The Salience of Power in the Regulation of Bargains: Procedural Unconscionability and the Importance of Context, 2006 Mich. St. L. Rev. 925 (2006).Google Scholar
Morgan, Derek, Surrogacy: An Introductory Essay, in Birthrights: Law and Ethics at the Beginnings of Life 55 (Lee, Robert & Morgan, Derek eds., 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mortazavi, Sarah, It Takes a Village to Make a Child: Creating Guidelines for International Surrogacy, 100 Geo. L.J. 2249 (2012).Google Scholar
Movsesian, Mark L., Two Cheers for Freedom of Contract: The Fall and Rise of Freedom of Contract (F.H. Buckley ed., 1999), 23 Cardozo L. Rev. 1529 (2002).Google Scholar
Munyon, Jessica H., Protectionism and Freedom of Contract: The Erosion of Female Autonomy in Surrogacy Decisions, 36 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 717 (2003).Google ScholarPubMed
Murphy, Jane C., Reforming Parentage Laws: Protecting Children by Preserving Parenthood, 14 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 969 (2006).Google Scholar
Murphy, Jane C. Rules, Responsibility and Commitment to Children: The New Language of Morality in Family Law, 60 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1111 (1999).Google Scholar
Murray, Melissa, The Networked Family: Reframing the Legal Understanding of Caregiving and Caregivers, 94 Va. L. Rev. 385 (2008).Google Scholar
Mutcherson, Kimberly M., Procreative Pluralism, 30 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 22 (2015).Google Scholar
Mutcherson, Kimberly M. Transformative Reproduction, 16 J. Gender, Race & Just. 187 (2013).Google Scholar
Welcome to the Wild West: Protecting Access to Cross Border Fertility Care in the United States, 22 Cornell J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 349 (2012).Google Scholar
Nadraus, Jennifer, Dodging the Donor Daddy Drama: Creating a Model Statute for Determining Parental Status of Known Sperm Donors, 53 Fam. Ct. Rev. 180 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NeJaime, Douglas, Griswold’s Progeny: Assisted Reproduction, Procreative Liberty, and Sexual Orientation Equality, 124 Yale L.J. F. 340 (2014–15).Google Scholar
NeJaime, Douglas Marriage Equality and the New Parenthood, 129 Harv. L. Rev. 1185 (2016).Google Scholar
NeJaime, Douglas The Constitution and the Family: The Family’s Constitution, 32 Const. Commentary 413 (2017).Google Scholar
NeJaime, Douglas The Story of Brooke S.B. v. Elizabeth A.C.C.: Parental Recognition in the Age of LGBT Equality, Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 629 ( 2018), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3119236.Google Scholar
Nelson, Erin, Global Trade and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Regulatory Challenges in International Surrogacy, 41 J.L. Med. & Ethics 240 (2013).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, Linda, Procreative Tourism, Genetic Testing and the Law, in Families Across Frontiers 831 (Lowe, Nigel & Douglas, Gillian eds., 1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nix, Jesse M., “You Only Donated Sperm”: Using Intent to Uphold Paternity Agreements, 11 J. L. & Fam. Stud. 487 (2009).Google Scholar
Nolan, Laurence C., Legal Strangers and the Duty of Support: Beyond the Biological Tie – But How Far Beyond the Marital Tie? 41 Santa Clara L. Rev. 1 (2000).Google Scholar
Nolan, Laurence C. Preventing Fatherlessness Through Adoption While Protecting the Parental Rights of Unwed Fathers: How Effective Are Paternity Registries? 4 Whittier J. Child & Fam. Advoc. 289 (2005).Google Scholar
Norton, Wendy et al., A Survey of UK Fertility Clinics’ Approach to Surrogacy Arrangements, 31(3) Reproductive BioMedicine Online 327 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nussbaum, Lauren, Conceiving a National Gamete Donor Registry: Policy Considerations, Privacy Concerns, and Legal Authority, 9 Health L. & Pol’y Brief (v. 1–3: Health L. & Pol’y) 24 (2015).Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Lauren O’Brien, Shari, Commercial Conceptions: A Breeding Ground for Surrogacy, 65 N.C. L. Rev. 127 (1986).Google Scholar
Oldham, Thomas J., Premarital Contracts Are Now Enforceable Unless …, 21 Hous. L. Rev. 757 (1984).Google Scholar
O’Neill, Onora, Begetting, Bearing, and Rearing, in Having Children: Philosophical and Legal Reflections on Parenthood 2 (O’Neill, Onora & Ruddick, W. eds., 1979).Google Scholar
Oren, Laura, The Paradox of Unmarried Fathers and the Constitution: Biology “Plus” Defines Relationships; Biology Alone Safeguards the Public Fisc, 11 Wm. & Mary J. of Women & L. 47 (2004).Google Scholar
Oren, Laura Thwarted Fathers or Pop-Up Pops?: How to Determine When Putative Fathers Can Block the Adoption of Their Newborn Children, 40 Fam. L.Q. 153 (2006).Google Scholar
Oren, Laura Unmarried Fathers and Adoption: “Perfecting” or “Abandoning” an Opportunity Interest, 36 Cap. U.L. Rev. 253 (2007).Google Scholar
Orentichler, David, Beyond Cloning: Expanding Reproductive Options for Same-Sex Couples, 66 Brook. L. Rev. 651 (2001).Google Scholar
Osborne, Margaret S., Legalizing Families: Solutions to Adjudicate Parentage for Lesbian Co-Parents, 49 Vill. L. Rev. 363 (2004).Google Scholar
Ostas, Daniel T., Predicting Unconscionability Decisions: An Economic Model and an Empirical Test, 29 Am. Bus. L.J. 535 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ouellette, Alicia et al., Lessons Across the Pond: Assisted Reproductive Technology in the United Kingdom and the United States, 31 Am. J.L. & Med. 419 (2005).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pande, Amrita, Commercial Surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a Perfect Mother-Worker, 35 Signs 969 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panitch, Alise R., The Davis Dilemma: How to Prevent Battles over Frozen Preembryos, 41 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 543 (1991).Google ScholarPubMed
Panitch, Vida, Global Surrogacy: Exploitation to Empowerment, 9 J. Global Ethics 329 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkman, Allen M., The Contractual Alternative to Marriage, 32 N. Ky. L. Rev. 125 (2005).Google Scholar
Parness, Jeffrey A., Federal Constitutional Childcare Parents, 90 St. John’s L. Rev. 965 (2016).Google Scholar
Parness, Jeffrey A. Marriage Equality, Parentage (In)Equality, 32 Wis. J. L. Gender, & Soc’y 179 (2017).Google Scholar
Parness, Jeffrey A. New Federal Paternity Laws: Securing More Fathers at Birth for the Children of Unwed Mothers, 45 Brandeis L.J. 59 (2006–2007).Google Scholar
Parness, Jeffrey A. Old-Fashioned Pregnancy, Newly-Fashioned Paternity, 53 Syracuse L. Rev. 57 (2003).Google Scholar
Parness, Jeffrey A. Unnatural Voluntary Parentage Acknowledgments Under the 2017 Uniform Parentage Act, 50 U. Toledo L. Rev. 25 (2018).Google Scholar
Parness, Jeffrey A. & Saxe, David A., Reforming the Processes for Challenging Voluntary Acknowledgements of Paternity, 92 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 177 (2017).Google Scholar
Parness, Jeffrey A. & Timko, Matthew, De Facto Parent and Nonparent Child Support Orders, 67 Am. U. L. Rev. 769 (2018).Google Scholar
Patton, Brock A., Buying a Newborn: Globalization and the Lack of Federal Regulation of Commercial Surrogacy Contracts, 79 UMKC L. Rev. 507 (2010).Google Scholar
Paulk, Lauren B., Embryonic Personhood: Implications for Assisted Reproductive Technology in International Human Rights Law, 22 Am. U.J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 781 (2014).Google Scholar
Pence, Gregory, De-Regulating and De-Criminalizing Innovations in Human Reproduction, 39 Cumb. L. Rev. 1 (2008).Google Scholar
Petersen, Sara D., Dealing with Cryopreserved Embryos upon Divorce: A Contractual Approach Aimed at Preserving Party Expectations, 50 UCLA L. Rev. 1065 (2003).Google ScholarPubMed
Pettit, Mark, Freedom, Freedom of Contract, and the “Rise and Fall,” 79 B.U. L. Rev. 263 (1999).Google Scholar
Pi, Vanessa L., Why Requiring Exposed Donation Is Not the Answer, 16 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 379 (2009).Google Scholar
Polikoff, Nancy D., A Mother Should Not Have to Adopt Her Own Child: Parentage Laws for Children of Lesbian Couples in the Twenty-first Century, 5 Stan. J. C.R. & C.L. 201 (2009).Google Scholar
Polikoff, Nancy D. This Child Does Have Two Mothers: Redefining Parenthood to Meet the Needs of Children in Lesbian-Mother and Other Nontraditional Families, 78 Geo. L.J. 459 (1990).Google Scholar
Posner, Eric A., Contract Law in the Welfare State: A Defense of the Unconscionability Doctrine, Usury Laws, and Related Limitations on the Freedom to Contract, 24 J. Legal Stud. 283 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Richard A., The Ethics and Economics of Enforcing Contracts of Surrogate Motherhood, 5 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol’y 21 (1989).Google ScholarPubMed
Pound, Roscoe, Individual Interests in the Domestic Relations, 14 Mich. L. Rev. 177 (1916).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Povarsky, Chaim, Regulating Advanced Reproductive Technologies: A Comparative Analysis of Jewish and American Law, 29 U. Tol. L. Rev. 409 (1998).Google ScholarPubMed
Powell, , Walter, W., Networks of Learning in Biotechnology: Opportunities and Constraints Associated with Relational Contracting in a Knowledge-Intensive Field, in Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society 251 (Cooper Dreyfuss, Rochelle et al. eds., 2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Harry G., Unconscionability in California: A Need for Restraint and Consistency, 46 Hastings L.J. 459 (1995).Google Scholar
Probert, Rebecca, Families, Assisted Reproduction and the Law, 16 Child & Fam. L.Q. 273 (2004).Google Scholar
Purvis, Dara E., Book Review, A Parent-Partner Status for American Family Law by Merle H. Weiner, 31 Berkeley J. Gender L. & Just. 378 (2016).Google Scholar
Purvis, Dara E. Intended Parents and the Problem of Perspective, 24 Yale J.L. & Feminism 210 (2012).Google Scholar
Purvis, Dara E. The Origin of Parental Rights: Labor, Intent, and Fathers, 41 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 645 (2013).Google Scholar
Qadeer, Imrana, Social and Ethical Basis of Legislation on Surrogacy: Need for Debate, 6 Indian J. Med. Ethics 28 (2009).Google ScholarPubMed
Radin, Margaret J., From Baby-Selling to Boilerplate: Reflections on the Limits of the Infrastructures of the Market, 54 Osgoode Hall L. J. 339 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rae, Scott B., Parental Rights and the Definition of Motherhood in Surrogate Motherhood, 3 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women’s Stud. 219 (1994).Google ScholarPubMed
Rains, Robert E., What the Erie “Surrogate Triplets” Can Teach State Legislatures About the Need to Enact Article 8 of the Uniform Parentage Act (2000), 56 Clev. St. L. Rev. 1 (2008).Google Scholar
Ramsey, Sarah H., Constructing Parenthood for Stepparents: Parents by Estoppel and De Facto Parents Under the American Law Institute’s Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution, 8 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol’y 285 (2001).Google Scholar
Randall, Susan, Judicial Attitudes toward Arbitration and the Resurgence of Unconscionability, 52 Buffalo L. Rev. 185 (2004).Google Scholar
Rao, Radhika, Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Threat to the Traditional Family, 47 Hastings L.J. 951 (1996).Google Scholar
Rasmusen, Eric & Stake, Jeffrey Evans, Lifting the Veil of Ignorance: Personalizing the Marriage Contract, 73 Ind. L.J. 453 (1998).Google Scholar
Rauschenberger, Henry S., To Kill a Cuckoo Bird: Louisiana’s Dual Paternity Problem, 77 La. L. Rev. 1177 (2017).Google Scholar
Raustiala, Kal, Form and Substance in International Agreements, 99 Am. J. Int’l L. 581 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, Becky A., Embryo Adoptions: Thawing Inactive Legislatures with a Proposed Uniform Law, 28 S. Ill. U. L.J. 423 (2004).Google Scholar
Redman, Paul C. & Redman, Lauren Fielder, Seeking a Better Solution for the Disposition of Frozen Embryos: Is Embryo Adoption the Answer?, 35 Tulsa L.J. 583 (2000).Google ScholarPubMed
Regan, Milton C., Market Discourse and Moral Neutrality in Divorce Law, 1994 Utah L. Rev. 605 (1994).Google Scholar
Rehbinder, Manfred, Status, Contract and the Welfare State, 23 Stan. L. Rev. 941 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, J. Brad & Swink, Dawn, Outsourcing Human Reproduction: Embryos & Surrogacy Services in the Cyberprocreation Era, 14 J. Health Care L. & Pol’y 241 (2011).Google Scholar
Reich, J. Brad & Swink, Dawn You Can’t Put the Genie Back in the Bottle: Potential Rights and Obligations of Egg Donors in the Cyberprocreation Era, 20 Alb. L.J. Scl. & tech. 1 (2010).Google Scholar
Reichman, Anne Schiff, Frustrated Intentions and Binding Biology: Seeking AID in the Law, 44 Duke L.J. 524 (1994).Google Scholar
Reichman, Anne Schiff Solomonic Decisions in Egg Donation: Unscrambling the Conundrum of Legal Maternity, 80 Iowa L. Rev. 265 (1995).Google Scholar
Rengachary Smerdon, Usha, Birth Registration and Citizenship Rights of Surrogate Babies Born in India, 20 Contemp. S. Asia 341 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rengachary Smerdon, Usha Crossing Bodies, Crossing Borders: International Surrogacy Between the United States and India, 39 Cumb. L. Rev. 15 (2008).Google Scholar
Richards, Janet L., Redefining Parenthood: Parental Rights Versus Child Rights, 40 Wayne L. Rev. 1227 (1994).Google Scholar
Richman, Kimberly D., (When) Are Rights Wrong? Rights Discourses and Indeterminacy in Gay and Lesbian Parents’ Custody Cases, 30 Law & Soc. Inquiry 137, 172 (2005).Google Scholar
Richmond, Diana, Parentage by Intention for Same-Sex Partners, 6 J. Center For. Fam. Child. & Cts. 125 (2005).Google Scholar
Riggs, Shelley A., Is the Approximation Rule in the Child’s Best Interests? A Critique from the Perspective of Attachment Theory, 43 Fam. Ct. Rev. 481 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rimm, Jennifer, Booming Baby Business: Regulating Commercial Surrogacy in India, 30 U. Pa. J. Int’l L. 1429 (2009).Google Scholar
Rivlin, Ram, The Puzzle of Intra-Familial Commodification, 67(1) U. Toronto L.J. 68 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Jane A., Parental Consent: The Need for an Informed Decision in the Private Adoption Scheme, 47 La. L. Rev. 889 (1986).Google Scholar
Roberts, Elizabeth F. S., The Traffic Between Women: Female Alliance and Familial Egg Donation in Ecuador, in Assisting Reproduction, Testing Genes: Global Encounters With New Biotechnologies 113 (Birenbaum-Carmeli, Daphna & Inhorn, Marcia C. eds., 2009).Google Scholar
Roberts, Paula, Biology and Beyond: The Case for Passage of the New Uniform Parentage Act, 35 Fam. L.Q. 41 (2001).Google Scholar
Roberts, Paula Truth and Consequences: Part I. Disestablishing the Paternity of Non-Marital Children, 37 Fam. L.Q. 35 (2003).Google Scholar
Robertson, John A., Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Family, 47 Hastings L.J. 911 (1996).Google ScholarPubMed
Robertson, John A. Embryos, Families, and Procreative Liberty: The Legal Structure of the New Reproduction, 59 S. Cal. L. Rev. 942 (1986).Google ScholarPubMed
Robertson, John A. Gay and Lesbian Access to Assisted Reproductive Technology, 55 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 323 (2004).Google Scholar
Robertson, John A. Precommitment Issues in Bioethics, 81 Tex. L. Rev. 1849 (2003).Google ScholarPubMed
Robertson, John A. Precommitment Strategies for Disposition of Frozen Embryos, 50 Emory L.J. 989, (2001).Google Scholar
Robertson, John A. Prior Agreements for Disposition of Frozen Embryos, 51 Ohio St. L.J. 407 (1990).Google ScholarPubMed
Robertson, John A. Procreative Liberty and the Control of Conception, Pregnancy, and Childbirth, 69 Va. L. Rev. 405 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, John A. Technology and Motherhood: Legal and Ethical Issues in Human Egg Donation, 39 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1 (1989).Google Scholar
Rogers, Brie S., The Presumption of Paternity in Child Support Cases: A Triumph of Law Over Biology, 70 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1151 (2002).Google Scholar
Rohwedder, David T., Ferguson v. McKiernan: Can a Sperm Donor Be Held Liable for Child Support After the Recipient Has Contractually Waived that Right?, 32 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 229 (2008)Google Scholar
Rolland, Louise, Qui dit contractual, dit juste (Fouillee) … en trois petits bonds, a reculons, 51 McGill L.J. 765 (2005–2006).Google Scholar
Romesburg, Don, Where She Comes From: Locating Queer Transracial Adoption, 1(3) QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking 1 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronald, Angel et al., Single Motherhood and Children’s Health, 29 J. Health & Soc. Behav. 38 (1988).Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan, Inalienability and the Theory of Property Rights, 85 Colum. L. Rev. 931 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, Michel, Contract and Justice: The Relation Between Classical Contract Law and Social Contract Theory, 70 Iowa L. Rev. 769 (1985).Google Scholar
Roth, Allan, The Tender Years Presumption in Child Custody Disputes, 15 J. Fam. L. 423 (1976).Google Scholar
Ruffini, Angela, Who’s Your Daddy?: The Marital Presumption of Legitimacy in the Modern World and Its Application to Same-Sex Couples, 55 Fam. Ct. Rev. 307 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russman, David P., Alternative Families: In Whose Best Interests?, 27 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 31 (1993).Google Scholar
Ryznar, Margaret, International Commercial Surrogacy and Its Parties, 43 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1009 (2010).Google Scholar
Sáez, Marcarena, Same-Sex Marriage, Same-Sex Cohabitation, and Same-Sex Families Around the World: Why “Same” Is so Different, 19 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 1 (2011).Google Scholar
Samuels, Elizabeth J., Time to Decide? The Laws Governing Mothers’ Consents to the Adoption of Their Newborn Infants, 72 Tenn. L. Rev. 509 (2005).Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael J., What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, Lecture at Brasenose College, Oxford (May 11–12, 1998), in The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 89 (1998).Google Scholar
Sanger, Carol, Abolishing Civil Marriage: A Case for Civil Marriage, 27 Cardozo L. Rev. 1311 (2006).Google Scholar
Sanger, Carol Developing Markets in Baby-Making: In the Matter of Baby M, 30 Harv. J.L. & Gender 67 (2007).Google Scholar
Saravanan, Sheela, An Ethnomethodological Approach to Examine Exploitation in the Context of Capacity, Trust and Experience of Commercial Surrogacy in India, 8 (10) Phil. Ethics & Human. Med. (2013).Google ScholarPubMed
Sauer, Julie L., Competing Interests and Gamete Donation: The Case for Anonymity, 39 Seton Hall L. Rev. 919 (2009).Google ScholarPubMed
Schenker, Joseph, Legitimising Surrogacy In Israel: Religious Perspective, in Surrogate Motherhood: International Perspectives 243 (Rachel, Cook et al. eds., 2003).Google Scholar
Schmidt, Katharina I., Henry Maine’s “Modern Law”: From Status to Contract and Back Again?, 65 Am. J. Comp. L. 145 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schnably, Stephen J., Property and Pragmatism: A Critique of Radin’s Theory of Property and Personhood, 45 Stan. L. Rev. 347 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Carl E., Moral Discourse and the Transformation of American Family Law, 83 Mich. L. Rev. 1803 (1985).Google Scholar
Schneider, David M., Kinship, Nationality and Religion in American Culture: Toward A Definition of Kinship, in Symbolic Anthropology: A Reader in the Study of Symbols and Meanings 66 (Dolgin, Janet L. et al. eds., 1977).Google Scholar
Schnor, Christine, Sole Physical Custody and Mother’s Repartnering After Divorce, 79(3) J. Marriage and Fam. 879 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoeman, Ferdinand, Rights of Children, Rights of Parents, and the Moral Basis of the Family, 91 Ethics 6 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuck, Peter H., Some Reflections on the Baby M Case, 76 Geo. L.J. 1793 (1988).Google ScholarPubMed
Schuck, Peter H. The Social Utility of Surrogacy, 13 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 132 (1990).Google ScholarPubMed
Schultz, Jessica H., Development of Ectogenesis: How Will Artificial Wombs Affect the Legal Status of a Fetus or Embryo?, 84 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 877 (2010).Google Scholar
Schwartz, Warren F. & Sykes, Alan O., The Economic Structure of Renegotiation and Dispute Resolution in the World Trade Organization, 31 J. Legal Stud. 179 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Elizabeth S., Parental Autonomy and Children’s Welfare, 11 Wm. & Mary Bill of Rts. J. 1071 (2003).Google Scholar
Scott, Elizabeth S. Pluralism, Parental Preference, and Child Custody, 80 Cal. L. Rev. 615 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Elizabeth S. Rehabilitating Liberalism in Modern Divorce Law, 1994 Utah L. Rev. 687 (1994).Google Scholar
Scott, Elizabeth S. Surrogacy and the Politics of Commodification, 72 Law & Contemp. Probs. 109 (2009).Google Scholar
Scott, Elizabeth S. & Scott, Robert E., From Contract to Status: Collaboration and the Evolution of Novel Family Relationships, 115 Colum. L. Rev. 293 (2015).Google Scholar
Scott, Elizabeth S. & Scott, Robert E. Marriage as Relational Contract, 84 Va. L. Rev. 1225 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Elizabeth S. & Scott, Robert E. Parents as Fiduciaries, 81 Va. L. Rev. 2401 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, Robert E., The Case for Formalism in Relational Contract, 94 Nw. U.L. Rev. 847 (2000).Google Scholar
Seidman, Louis M., Baby M and the Problem of Unstable Preferences, 76 Geo. L. J. 1829 (1988).Google Scholar
Sensenbrenner, Erica P., Modifying Consent Decrees: Louisiana Supreme Court Balances Parental Rights with the Child’s Need for Stability in Tracie v. Francisco, 63 Loy. L. Rev. 359 (2017).Google Scholar
Serfozo, M. Scott, Sperm Donor Child Support Obligations: How Courts and Legislatures Should Properly Weigh the Interests of Donor, Donee, and Child, 77 U. Cin. L. Rev. 715 (2008).Google Scholar
Seymore, Malinda L., Grasping Fatherhood in Abortion and Adoption, 68 Hastings L.J. 817 (2017).Google Scholar
Shakargy, Sharon, Surrogacy in Israel, in International Surrogacy Arrangements: Legal Regulation at the International Level 231 (Trimmings, Katarina & Beaumont, Paul eds., 2013).Google Scholar
Shaman, Jeffrey M., Legal Aspects of Artificial Insemination, 18 J. Fam. L. 331 (1980).Google Scholar
Shanley, Mary L., Collaboration and Commodification in Assisted Procreation: Reflections on an Open Market and Anonymous Donation in Human Sperm and Eggs, 36 Law & Soc’y Rev. 257 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanley, Mary L. Unwed Fathers’ Rights, Adoption, and Sex Equality: Gender-Neutrality and the Perpetuation of Patriarchy, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 60 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shany, Yuval, Binary Law Meets Complex Reality: The Occupation of Gaza Debate, 41 Israel L. Rev. 68 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Julie, Counting from One: Replacing the Marital Presumption with a Presumption of Sole Parentage, 20 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 509 (2012).Google Scholar
Shapiro, Julie De Facto Parents and the Unfulfilled Promise of the New ALI Principles, 35 Willamette L. Rev. 769 (1999).Google Scholar
Shapo, Helene S., Assisted Reproduction and the Law: Disharmony on a Divisive Social Issue, 100 Nw. U. L. Rev. 465 (2006).Google Scholar
Shapo, Helene S. Frozen Pre-Embryos and the Right to Change One’s Mind, 12 Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 75 (2002).Google Scholar
Shapo, Helene S. Matters of Life and Death: Inheritance Consequences of Reproductive Technologies, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 1091 (1997).Google ScholarPubMed
Sharma, K.M., From “Sanctity” to “Fairness”: An Uneasy Transition in the Law of Contracts?, 18 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 95 (1999).Google Scholar
Sharp, Lesley A., The Commodification of the Body and its Parts, 29 Annual Review of Anthropology 287 (2000).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheinbach, Donna M., Examining Disputes over Ownership Rights to Frozen Embryos: Will Prior Consent Documents Survive If Challenged by State Law and/or Constitutional Principles?, 48 Cath. U.L. Rev. 989 (1999).Google ScholarPubMed
Shmueli, Benjamin, Commodifying Personal Rights and Trading the Right to Divorce: Damages for Refusal to Divorce and Equalizing the Women’s Power to Bargain, 22 UCLA Women’s L.J. 39 (2015).Google Scholar
Shultz, Marjorie M., Book Review: Questioning Commodification Contested Commodities: The Trouble with Trade in Sex, Children, Body Parts, and Other Things, 85 Cal. L. Rev. 1841 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shultz, Marjorie M. Contractual Ordering of Marriage: A New Model for State Policy, 70 Cal. L. Rev 204 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shultz, Marjorie M. Reproductive Technology and Intent-Based Parenthood: An Opportunity for Gender Neutrality, 1990 Wis. L. Rev. 297 (1990).Google ScholarPubMed
Siegel, Reva B., Same-Sex Marriage and Backlash: Consensus, Conflict, and Constitutional Culture, 64 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 1728 (2017).Google Scholar
Siegel, Reva B. The Modernization of Marital Status Law: Adjudicating Wives’ Rights to Earnings, 1860–1930, 82 Geo. L.J. 2127 (1994).Google Scholar
Silbaugh, Katharine, Commodification and Women’s Household Labor, 9 Yale J.L. & Feminism 81 (1997).Google Scholar
Silver, Lee M. & Silver, Susan R., Confused Heritage and the Absurdity of Genetic “Ownership,” 11 Harv. J. L. & Tech. 593 (1998).Google ScholarPubMed
Skouvakis, Fotini A., Defining the Undefined: Using a Best Interests Approach to Decide the Fate of Cryopreserved Preembryos in Pennsylvania, 109 Penn. St. L. Rev. 885 (2005).Google Scholar
Sly, Karen M., Baby-sitting Consideration: Surrogate Mother’s Right to “Rent Her Womb” for a Fee, 18 Gonzaga L. Rev. 539 (1982–3).Google ScholarPubMed
Smolin, David M., Surrogacy as the Sale of Children: Applying Lessons Learned from Adoption to the Regulation of the Surrogacy Industry’s Global Marketing of Children, 43 Pepp. L. Rev. 265 (2016).Google Scholar
Soifer, Aviam, Status, Contract, and Promises Unkept, 96(8) Yale L. J. 1916 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Son, Hyun Jee, Artificial Wombs, Frozen Embryos, and Abortion: Reconciling Viability’s Doctrinal Ambiguity, 14 UCLA Women’s L.J. 213 (2005).Google Scholar
Spaht, Katherine S., For the Sake of the Children: Recapturing the Meaning of Marriage, 73 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1547 (1998).Google Scholar
Spar, Debora L., As You Like It: Exploring the Limits of Parental Choice in Assisted Reproduction, 27 Law & Ineq. 481 (2009).Google Scholar
Spar, Debora L. Reproductive Tourism and the Regulatory Map, 352 New Eng. J. Med. 531 (2005).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spector, Horacio, A Contractarian Approach to Unconscionability, 81 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 95 (2006).Google Scholar
Speidel, Richard E., Contract Excuse Doctrine and Retrospective Legislation: The Winstar Case, 2001 Wis. L. Rev. 795 (2001).Google Scholar
Speidel, Richard E. Court-Imposed Price Adjustments under Long-Term Supply Contracts, 76 NW.U. L. Rev. 369 (1981).Google Scholar
Spitko, E. Gary, Reclaiming the “Creatures of the State”: Contracting for Child Custody Decisionmaking in the Best Interests of the Family, 57 Wash &, Lee L. Rev. 1139 (2000).Google Scholar
Spivack, Carla, The Law of Surrogate Motherhood in the United States, 58 Am. J. Comp. L. 97 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, Barbara, Transnational Surrogacy and International Human Rights Law, 18 ILSA J. Int’l & Comp. L. 369 (2012).Google Scholar
Stehr, Emily, International Surrogacy Contract Regulation: National Governments’ and International Bodies’ Misguided Quests to Prevent Exploitation, 35 Hastings Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 253 (2012).Google Scholar
Stein, Karen, Margaret Atwood’s the Handmaid’s Tale: Scheherazade in Dystopia, 61(2) U Toronto Q. 269 (1991/2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stempel, Jeffrey W., Arbitration, Unconscionability, and Equilibrium: The Return of Unconscionability Analysis as a Counterweight to Arbitration Formalism, 19 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 757 (2004).Google Scholar
Stewart, Monte Neil, Genderless Marriage, Institutional Realities, and Judicial Elision, 1 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol’y 1 (2006).Google Scholar
Stolier, Jennifer M., Disputing Frozen Embryos: Using International Perspectives to Formulate Uniform U.S. Policy, 9 Tul. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 459 (2001).Google Scholar
Stone, Allison J., “Sisters Are Doin’ It for Themselves!” Why the Parental Rights of Registered Domestic Partners Must Trump the Parental Rights of Their Known Sperm Donors in California, 41 U.S.F. L. Rev. 505 (2007).Google Scholar
Storrow, Richard F., “The Phantom Children of the Republic”: International Surrogacy and the New Illegitimacy, 20 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 561 (2012).Google Scholar
Storrow, Richard F. Parenthood by Pure Intention: Assisted Reproduction and the Functional Approach to Parentage, 53 Hastings L.J. 597 (2002).Google ScholarPubMed
Storrow, Richard F. Quests for Conception: Fertility Tourists, Globalization and Feminist Legal Theory, 57 Hastings L.J. 295 (2005).Google Scholar
Storrow, Richard F. The Bioethics of Prospective Parenthood: In Pursuit of the Proper Standard for Gatekeeping in Infertility Clinics, 28 Cardozo L. Rev. 2283 (2007).Google Scholar
Strasser, Mark P. The Updating of Baby M: A Confused Jurisprudence Becomes More Confusing, 78 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 181 (2016).Google Scholar
Strasser, Mark P. You Take the Embryos But I Get the House (and the Business): Recent Trends in Awards Involving Embryos upon Divorce, 57 Buff. L. Rev. 1159 (2009).Google Scholar
Stumpf, Andrea E., Redefining Mother: A Legal Matrix for New Reproductive Technologies, 96 Yale L.J. 187 (1986).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suter, Sonia M., Giving in to Baby Markets: Regulation Without Prohibition, 16 Mich. J. Gender & L. 217 (2009).Google Scholar
Swanson, Carol B., Unconscionable Quandary: UCC Article 2 and the Unconscionability Doctrine, 31 N.M.L. Rev. 359 (2001).Google Scholar
Swanson, Kara W., Adultery by Doctor: Artificial Insemination, 1890–1945, 87 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 591 (2012).Google Scholar
Swift, Katherine M., Parenting Agreements, the Potential Power of Contract, and the Limits of Family Law, 34 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 913 (2007).Google Scholar
Swink, Dawn R. & Reich, J. Brad, Caveat Vendor: Potential Progeny, Paternity, and Product Liability Online, 2007 BYU L. Rev. 857 (207).Google Scholar
Symposium, Introduction to Symposium on DOMA and Issues Concerning Federalism and Interstate Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships, 41 Cal. W. Int’l L.J. 1 (2010).Google Scholar
Symposium, The Impact of Same-Sex Marriage on Education, 2011 BYU Educ. & L.J. 177 (2011).Google Scholar
Tachibana, Masahito et al., Towards Germline Gene Therapy of Inherited Mitochondrial Diseases, 493 (7434) Nature 627 (2013), www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7434/abs/nature11647.html.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tallon, Denis, Hardship, in Towards a European Civil Code 499 (Hartkamp, Arthur S. et al. eds., 3d ed. 2004).Google Scholar
Teeven, Kevin M., A History of Legislative Reform of the Common Law of Contract, 26 U. Tol. L. Rev. 35 (1994).Google Scholar
Teitelbaum, Lee E. The Family as a System: A Preliminary Sketch, 1996 Utah L. Rev. 537 (1996).Google Scholar
Temple, Gregg, Freedom of Contract and Intimate Relationships, 8 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 121 (1985).Google Scholar
Tidwell, Patricia & Linzer, Peter, The Flesh-Colored Band Aid: Contracts, Feminism Dialogue and Norms, 28 Houston L. Rev. 791 (1991).Google Scholar
Timms, Olinda, Ending Commercial Surrogacy in India: Significance of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016, Indian J. Med. Eth. Online (2018).Google Scholar
Timms, Olinda Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016: A Commentary, Indian J. Med. Eth. Online (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Totz, Mary A., What’s Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander: Toward Recognition of Men’s Reproductive Rights, 15 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 141 (1994).Google ScholarPubMed
Trakman, Leon E., Winner Take Some: Loss Sharing and Commercial Impracticability, 69 Minn. L. Rev. 471 (1985).Google Scholar
Trebilcock, Michael J. & Keshvani, Rosemin, The Role of Private Ordering in Family Law: A Law and Economics Perspective, 41 U. Toronto L.J. 533 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, Regine, Quebec’s Filiation Regime, the Roy Report’s Recommendations, and the Interest of the Child, 31 Can. J. Fam. L. 199 (2018).Google Scholar
Trimmings, Katarina & Beaumont, Paul, International Surrogacy Arrangements: An Urgent Need for Legal Regulation at the International Level, 7 J. Priv. Int’l L. 627 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuininga, Kevin, The Ethics of Surrogacy Contracts and Nebraska’s Surrogacy Law, 41 Creighton L. Rev. 185 (2008).Google Scholar
Turner, Leigh,“Medical Tourism” and the Global Marketplace in Health Services: U.S. Patients, International Hospitals, and the Search for Affordable Health Care, 40 Int. J. Health Serv. 443 (2010).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, Leigh”First World Health Care at Third World Prices”: Globalization, Bioethics and Medical Tourism, 2 Biosocieties 303 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulen, , Thomas, S., Cognitive Imperfections and the Economic Analysis of Law, 12 Hamline L. Rev. 385 (1989).Google Scholar
“Unconscionability” as Ground for Refusing Enforcement of Contract for Sale of Goods or Agreement Collateral Thereto, 18 A.L.R.3d 1305 (1968).Google Scholar
Van Alstine, Michael P., Of Textualism, Party Autonomy, and Good Faith, 40 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1223 (1999).Google Scholar
Van Beers, Britta C., Is Europe “Giving in to Baby Markets?” Reproductive Tourism in Europe and the Gradual Erosion of Existing Legal Limits to Reproductive Markets, 23 Med. L. Rev. 103 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Beers, Britta C. The Changing Nature of Law’s Natural Person: The Impact of Emerging Technologies on the Legal Concept of the Person, 18 German L.J. 559 (2017).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Zyl, Liezl, Intentional Parenthood: Responsibilities in Surrogate Motherhood, 10 Health Care Analysis 165 (2002).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Zyl, Liezl & Walker, Ruth, Surrogacy, Compensation, and Legal Parentage: Against the Adoption Model, 12 J. Bioethical Inquiry 383 (2015).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vegter, Melissa B., The “ART” of Inheritance: A Proposal for Legislation Requiring Proof of Parental Intent before Posthumously Conceived Children Can Inherit from a Deceased Parent’s Estate, 38 Val. U. L. Rev. 267 (2003).Google Scholar
Veilleux, Danny R., Validity and Construction of Surrogate Parenting Agreement, 77 A.L.R. 4th 70 (2008).Google Scholar
Velte, Kyle C., Egging on Lesbian Maternity: The Legal Implications of Tri-Gametic in Vitro Fertilization, 7 Am. U. J. Gender, Soc. Pol’y & L. 431 (1998/1999).Google Scholar
Verkauf, Barry S., Artificial Insemination: Progress, Polemics, and Confusion – An Appraisal of Current Medico-Legal Status, 3 Hous. L. Rev. 277 (1966).Google Scholar
Villareale, Catherine, The Case of Two Biological Intended Mothers: Illustrating the Need to Statutorily Define Maternity in Maryland, 42 U. Balt. L. Rev. 365 (2013).Google Scholar
Vincent, Caroline & Aftandilian, Alene D., Liberation or Exploitation: Commercial Surrogacy and the Indian Surrogate, 36 Suffolk Transnat’l L. Rev. 671 (2013).Google Scholar
Wadlington, Walter, Artificial Conception: The Challenge for Family Law, 69 Va. L. Rev. 465 (1983).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wadlington, Walter Artificial Insemination: The Dangers of a Poorly Kept Secret, 64 Nw. U. L. Rev. 777 (1969–1970).Google Scholar
Wagner, David M., Balancing “Parents Are” and “Parents Do” in the Supreme Court’s Constitutionalized Family Law: Some Implications for the ALI Proposals on De Facto Parenthood, 2001 BYU L. Rev. 1175 (2001).Google Scholar
Wagner, William J., The Contractual Reallocation of Procreative Resources and Parental Rights: The Natural Endowment Critique, 41 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 1 (1990).Google Scholar
Waisbord, Ivy, Amending State Putative Father Registries: Affording More Rights and Protections to America’s Unwed Fathers, 44 Hofstra L. Rev. 565 (2015).Google Scholar
Wald, Deborah H., The Parentage Puzzle: The Interplay Between Genetics, Procreative Intent, and Parental Conduct in Determining Legal Parentage, 15 Am. U. J. Gender Soc. Pol’y & L. 379 (2007).Google Scholar
Wald, Michael S., Children’s Rights: A Framework for Analysis, 12 C.D. L. Rev. 255 (1979).Google Scholar
Waldman, Ellen A., Disputing over Embryos: Of Contracts and Consents, 32 Ariz. St. L.J. 897 (2000).Google ScholarPubMed
Waldman, Ellen A. The Parent Trap: Uncovering the Myth of “Coerced Parenthood” in Frozen Embryo Disputes, 53 Am. U. L. Rev. 1021 (2004).Google Scholar
Walker Wilson, Molly J., Precommitment in Free-Market Procreation: Surrogacy, Commissioned Adoption, and Limits on Human Decision Making Capacity, 31 J. Legis. 329 (2005).Google Scholar
Wardle, Lynn D., Deconstructing Family: A Critique of the American Law Institute’s “Domestic Partners” Proposal, 2001 BYU L. Rev. 1189 (2001).Google Scholar
Wardle, Lynn D. The Potential Impact of Homosexual Parenting on Children, 1997 U. Ill. L. Rev 833 (1997).Google Scholar
Warshak, , Richard, A., Parenting By the Clock: The Best-Interest-of-the-Child Standard, Judicial Discretion, and the American Law Institute’s Approximation Rule, 41 U. Balt. L. Rev. 83 (2011).Google Scholar
Warshak, , Richard, A. Punching the Parenting Time Clock: The Approximation Rule, Social Science, and the Baseball Bat Kids, 45 Fam. Ct. Rev. 600 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warshak, , Richard, A. The Approximation Rule, Child Development Research, and Children’s Best Interests After Divorce, 1(2) Child Development Perspectives 119 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washington, Tanya, Suffer Not the Little Children: Prioritizing Children’s Rights in Constitutional Challenges to “Same-Sex Adoption Bans,” 39 Cap. U. L. Rev. 231 (2011).Google Scholar
Wertheimer, Alan, Two Questions About Surrogacy and Exploitation, 21 Phil. & Pub. Aff. 211 (1992).Google ScholarPubMed
West, Robin, Authority, Autonomy, and Choice: The Role of Consent in the Moral and Political Visions of Franz Kafka and Richard Posner, 99 Harv. L. Rev. 384 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westfall, David, Unmarried Partners and the Legacy of Marvin v. Marvin: Forcing Incidents of Marriage on Unmarried Cohabitants: The American Law Institute’s Principles of Family Dissolution, 76 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1467 (2001).Google Scholar
Westreich, Avishalom, Changing Motherhood Paradigms: Jewish Law, Civil Law, and Society, 28 Hastings Women’s L.J. 97 (2017).Google Scholar
Widdows, H. & MacCallum, F., Disparities in Parenting Criteria: An Exploration of the Issues, Focusing on Adoption and Embryo Donation, 28 J. Med. Ethics 139 (2002).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widiss, Deborah A., Intimate Liberties and Antidiscrimination Law, 97 B.U. L. Rev. 2083 (2017).Google Scholar
Wightman, John, Intimate Relationships, Relational Contract Theory, and the Reach of Contract, 8 Fem. Leg. Stud. 93 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wikler, Norma J., Society’s Response to the New Reproductive Technologies: The Feminist Perspectives, 59 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1043 (1986).Google Scholar
Williams, Joan C. & Zelizer, Viviana A., To Commodify or Not to Commodify: That is Not the Question, in Rethinking Commodification 362 (Ertman, Martha M. & Williams, Joan C. eds., 2005).Google Scholar
Winquist Nord, Christine et al., Home Literacy Activities and Signs of Children’s Emerging Literacy: 1993 and 1999, 2 Educ. Stat. Q. 19 (2000).Google Scholar
Wood, Cheri L., Childless Mothers? The New Catch-22: You Can’t Have Your Kids and Work for Them Too, 29 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 383 (1995).Google Scholar
Woodhouse, Barbara B., A Public Role in the Private Family: The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act and the Politics of Child Protection and Education, 57 Ohio St. L.J. 393 (1996).Google Scholar
Woodhouse, Barbara B. Hatching the Egg: A Child-Centered Perspective on Parents’ Rights, 14 Cardozo L. Rev. 1747 (1993).Google Scholar
Woodhouse, Barbara B. Talking About Children’s Rights in Judicial Custody and Visitation Decision-Making, 36 Fam. L.Q. 105 (2002).Google Scholar
Wright, Danaya, The Anti-Boomer Effect: Property Rights, Regulatory Takings and a Welfare Model of Land Ownership, 5 Austl. J. Legal Hist. 63 (1999).Google Scholar
Yang, Diane K., What’s Mine Is Mine, But What’s Yours Should Also Be Mine: An Analysis of State Statutes That Mandate the Implantation of Frozen Preembryos, 10 J.L. & Pol’y 587 (2002).Google Scholar
Yoshida, Alyssa, The Modern Legal Status of Frozen Embryos, 68 Hastings L.J. 711 (2017).Google Scholar
Young, Alison H., Reconceiving the Family: Challenging the Paradigm of the Exclusive Family, 6 Am. U. J. Gender & Law 505 (1998).Google Scholar
Younger, Judith T., Lovers’ Contracts in the Courts: Forsaking the Minimum Decencies, 13 Wm. & Mary J. of Women & L. 349 (2007).Google Scholar
Zafran, Ruth, Dying to be a Father: Legal Paternity in Cases of Posthumous Conception, 8 Hous. J. Health L. & Pol’y 47 (2007).Google Scholar
Zafran, Ruth More Than One Mother: Determining Maternity for the Biological Child of a Female Same-Sex Couple – the Israeli View, 9 Geo. J. Gender & L. 115 (2008).Google Scholar
Zalesne, Deborah, The Contractual Family: The Role of the Market in Shaping Family Formations and Rights, 36 Cardozo L. Rev. 1027 (2015).Google Scholar
Zalesne, Deborah The Intersection of Contract Law, Reproductive Technology, and the Market: Families in the Age of Art, 51 U. Rich. L. Rev. 419 (2017).Google Scholar
Zanghellini, Aleardo, Who Is Entitled to Parental Responsibility – Biology, Caregiving, Intention and the Family Law Act 1975 (CTH): A Jurisprudential Feminist Analysis, 35 Monash U. L. Rev. 147 (2009).Google Scholar
Zelinsky, Edward A., Deregulating Marriage: The Pro-Marriage Case for Abolishing Civil Marriage, 27 Cardozo L. Rev. 1161 (2006).Google Scholar
Zgonjanin, Sanja, What Does It Take to Be a (Lesbian) Parent? On Intent and Genetics, 16 Hastings Women’s L.J. 251 (2005).Google Scholar
Zizzi, Marisa G., The Preembryo Prenup: A Proposed Pennsylvania Statute Adopting a Contractual Approach to Resolving Disputes Concerning the Disposition of Frozen Embryos, 21 Widener L.J. 391 (2012).Google Scholar
1959 United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of the Child (UNDRC).Google Scholar
American Law Institute (ALI), Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations (2000).Google Scholar
Anapol, Avery, Connecticut Recruiting LGBT Families to Adopt Children as Other States Let Adoption Agencies Ban Same-Sex Couples, The Hill, May 18, 2018, http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/388292-connecticut-recruiting-lgbt-families-to-adopt-children-as-other-states.Google Scholar
Australia Investigates “Paedophile” Father in Thai Surrogate Baby Scandal, Yahoo News (August 6, 2014, 3:52 AM), http://news.yahoo.com/australian-couple-thai-surrogate-mother-misled-world-071951328.html.Google Scholar
Barkam, Noah, Convicted Pedophile Raises Surrogate Daughter, Ynetnews (June 2, 2013, 5:21 PM), www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4387303,00.html.Google Scholar
Blackburn-Starza, Antony, Germline in the Sand: The Ethics and Law of Engineering the Embryo, BioNews 836, January 25, 2016.Google Scholar
Brazier, Margaret et al., Dept. of Health Surrogacy, Review for Health Ministers of Current Arrangements for Payments and Regulation, Report of the Review Team (1998).Google Scholar
Brazier, Margaret Surrogacy: Review for the UK Health Ministers of Current Arrangements for Payments and Regulation. Consultation Document and Questionnaire (1997), http://repositorio.gire.org.mx/bitstream/123456789/2293/1/surrogacy.pdf.Google Scholar
British Medical Ass’n, Changing Conceptions of Motherhood – The Practice of Surrogacy in Britain (1996).Google Scholar
Buxton, Jess, Genome Editing and CRISPR: The Science of Engineering the Embryo, BioNews 835, January 18, 2016.Google Scholar
Canadian Royal Comm’n on New Reprod. Techs., Proceed with Care: the Final Report of the Royal Commission on New Reproductive Technologies (1993).Google Scholar
Circle Surrogacy, What is a Surrogate Mother?, www.circlesurrogacy.com/surrogates/surrogate-definition.Google Scholar
Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons Art. 1, Sept. 28, 1954, 360 U.N.T.S. 117.Google Scholar
Council on Gen. Affairs & Policy, Hague Conference, Conclusions and Recommendations (2010), https://asadip.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/genaff2010concl_e.pdf.Google Scholar
Council on Gen. Affairs & Policy, Hague Conference, Conclusions and Recommendations (2014), www.hcch.net/upload/wop/genaff2014concl_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Egg Donation in Israel, www.health.gov.il/English/Topics/fertility/Pages/ovum_donation.aspx.Google Scholar
Everett, Georgia, Father Sues Clinic for Letting Ex Get Pregnant Secretly with Frozen Embryo, BioNews 910, July 24, 2017, www.bionews.org.uk/page.asp?obj_id=864126&PPID=864810&sid=832.Google Scholar
First Womb Transplants in India Set to Proceed Under Different Approvals, BioNews 900, May 15, 2017, www.bionews.org.uk/page.asp?obj_id=841248&PPID=841585&sid=383.Google Scholar
G.A. Res. 44/25, annex, Convention on the Rights of the Child (Nov. 20, 1989).Google Scholar
Glover, Jonathan, Ethics of New Reproductive Technologies: The Glover Report to the European Commission (1989).Google Scholar
Hague Apostille Convention Outline, HCCH, www.hcch.net/upload/outline12e.pdf.Google Scholar
Hague Child Support Convention Outline, HCCH (2012), www.hcch.net/upload/outline38e.pdf.Google Scholar
Hague Conference, Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption: Conclusions and Recommendations (2010), www.hcch.net/upload/wop/adop2010concl_e.pdf.Google Scholar
Hague Conference, The Desirability and Feasibility of Further Work on the Parentage/Surrogacy Project (2014), www.hcch.net/upload/wop/gap2015pd03b_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention Outline, HCCH (2013), www.hcch.net/upload/outline33e.pdf.Google Scholar
Hope, Christopher & Ward, Victoria, Grandparents Could Be Given Legal Right to See Their Grandchildren After Divorce, The Telegraph 05. 06.18, www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/05/06/grandparents-could-given-legal-right-see-children-divorce/.Google Scholar
Jaiswal, Ritesh R., Three Parent IVF / Three Parent Baby, The Science, February 19, 2015, http://thescience.co.in/tag/three-parents-ivf/.Google Scholar
Law Reform Committee, Inquiry into Access by Donor-Conceived People to Information about Donors (2012), www.parliament.vic.gov.au/images/stories/committees/lawrefrom/iadcpiad/DCP_Final_Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Legal and Social Issues Surrounding Medical Tourism Changes in the Stance Toward Commercial Surrogacy in India, CINII, http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/120005349394.Google Scholar
Lunt, Neil et al., Medical Tourism: Treatments, Markets and Health System Implications: A Scoping Review (2011), www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/48723982.pdf.Google Scholar
Marquardt, Elizabeth, One Parent or Five? A Global Look at Today’s New Intentional Families (2011), www.americanvalues.org/search/item.php?id=80.Google Scholar
Ctrs. For Disease Control & Prevention, Medical Tourism, www.cdc.gov/features/medicaltourism/.Google Scholar
Nat’l Ctr. for Lesbian Rights, Legal Recognition of LGBT Families 1(2016), www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Legal_Recognition_of_LGBT_Families.pdf.Google Scholar
Ochert, Ayala, HFEA Grants Permission to Genetically Edit Human Embryos, BioNews 837, February 01, 2016.Google Scholar
Office of Tech. Assessment, U.S. Cong., OTA-13P-BA-48, Artificial Insemination: Practice in the United States (1988).Google Scholar
Parenthood and Procreation, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2016), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parenthood/.Google Scholar
Permanent Bureau, Hague Conference, A Preliminary Report on the Issues Arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements (2012), www.hcch.net/upload/wop/gap2012pd10en.pdf.Google Scholar
Permanent Bureau, Hague Conference, A Study of Legal Parentage and the Issues Arising From International Surrogacy Arrangements (2014).Google Scholar
Permanent Bureau, Hague Conference, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Fifth Meeting of the Special Commission to Review the Operation of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 (2006), https://assets.hcch.net/upload/concl28sc5_e.pdf.Google Scholar
Permanent Bureau, Hague Conference, Private International Law Issues Surrounding the Status of Children, Including Issues Arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements (2011), https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=6048&dtid=33.Google Scholar
Permanent Bureau, Hague Conference, The Implementation and Operation of the 1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention: Guide to Good Practice (2008), https://assets.hcch.net/upload/adoguide_e.pdf.Google Scholar
Permanent Bureau, Hague Conference, The Parentage/Surrogacy Project: An Updating Note (2015), www.hcch.net/upload/wop/gap2015pd03a_en.pdf.Google Scholar
Permanent Bureau, Hague Conference, Transfrontier Contact Concerning Children: General Principles and a Guide to Good Practice (2008), www.hcch.net/upload/guidecontact_e.pdf.Google Scholar
A Preliminary Report on the Issues Arising From International Surrogacy Arrangements (2012).Google Scholar
Pritchard, Sarah, Why the UK Should Be Leading the Discussion on Embryo Engineering, BioNews 834, January 11, 2016.Google Scholar
Private International Law Issues Surrounding the Status of Children, HCCH, www.hcch.net/en/projects/legislative-projects/parentage-surrogacy.Google Scholar
Private International Law Issues Surrounding the Status of Children, Including Issues Arising From International Surrogacy Arrangements (2011).Google Scholar
Report of the Experts’ Group on the Parentage/Surrogacy Project (Meeting of January 31–February 3, 2017), https://assets.hcch.net/docs/ed997a8d-bdcb-48eb-9672-6d0535249d0e.pdf.Google Scholar
Report of the February 2016 Meeting of the Experts’ Group on Parentage/Surrogacy February 2016, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/f92c95b5-4364–4461-bb04-2382e3c0d50d.pdf.Google Scholar
Roy, Alain (pres,) Comite consultatif sur le droit de la famille, Pour un droit de la famille adapté aux nouvelles réalitiés conjugales et familiales (Quebec: Ministre de la Justice, 2015) [Roy Report].Google Scholar
Solomon-Fears, Carmen & Smith, Alison M., Hague Convention Treaty On Recovery Of International Child Support And H.R. 1896 (2013), www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43109.pdf.Google Scholar
Thai Police Free Women from Surrogate Baby Ring, Vietnamnet (February 25, 2011), http://english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/society/4940/thai-police-free-women-from-surrogate-baby-ring.html.Google Scholar
The Parentage/Surrogacy Project, www.hcch.net/en/projects/legislative-projects/parentage-surrogacy.Google Scholar
U.K. Dep’t. of Health and Social Sec., Rep. of the Comm. of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (1984).Google Scholar
U.S. Catholic Conference, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation, Donum Vitae (1987).Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Infertility: Medical and Social Choices (1988).Google Scholar
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, accepted in the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948 (1948).Google Scholar
World Health Organization’s International Digest of Health Legislation, http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/86893.Google Scholar