WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS POST BELOW, AND HOW DOES IT RELATE TO FAMILY LAW?

In this article titled: THE DNA DEFAULT AND ITS DISCONTENTS: ESTABLISHING MODERN PARENTHOOD it explains how a majority of the children in this country have their legal parentage determined by reference to the mother's marriage: the spouse of the woman who gives birth is the legal parent of the born child. This marital presumption now usually applies to both opposite- and same-sex couples. A much smaller group of children has its parentage determined by the granting of a state license to adults who apply to be parents (i.e., adoption) or of reproductive technology contracts (i.e., surrogacy or sperm donation). The rest of the children in this country-approximately forty percent-have their parentage determined by a DNA default, a presumption that whoever had the sex with the mother that resulted in the pregnancy is the father of the child.

This Article problematizes that DNA default. It upsets the seemingly unquestionable assumption that genetic progenitors are the adults to whom the law should assign parental status. In doing so, this Article echoes, but also challenges the common call in contemporary family-law scholarship for the law to support nonmarital parenting. Rejecting marriage as the model for determining parentage is a worthy and overdue goal, but reformers must be more wary of what fills the void left by rejecting marriage. Currently, in most instances, if marriage does not determine parentage, genetics do. Using genetics to determine legal parentage is just as political as is using marriage to determine legal parentage. This Article argues it is a problematic political choice. I really liked this article and thought it was very insightful

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?