1 Another term for a microarray is “DNA chip.” According to the Director of the National Institute of Justice, the first forensic DNA chip should be ready for evaluation by December 2001. How Effectively Are State and Federal Agencies Working Together to Implement the Use of New DNA Technologies?, Testimony Before the House Government Reform Comm., Subcomm. on Government Efficiency, Financial Management and Intergovernmental Relations, 107th Cong. (2001) (statement of David G. Boyd), available at http://www.house.gov/reform/gefmir/hearing_index.htm.

2 For example, consider the following case. A woman with a strong family history of breast cancer was diagnosed with ductal carcinoma-in-situ (DCIS), a condition that can be a precursor to invasive breast cancer. She tested negative for three common BRCA1/2 mutations associated with heightened breast cancer risk. This result did not rule out the possibility that another—as yet undetected—inherited genetic mutation was associated with the family cancer and her own condition. Therefore, she continued to plan for bilateral mastectomies, rather than breast-conserving therapy. The plan changed only when a sister, earlier treated for breast and ovarian cancer, tested positive for a BRCA1 mutation. Given this result, the medical team concluded that the woman's DCIS was sporadic and her risks for invasive breast cancer were the same as those for other women with breast cancer in the general population. Beth N. Peshkin et al., BRCAI/2 Testing: Complex Themes in Result Interpretation, 19 J. Clinical Oncology 2555, 2556 (2001). In a hypothetical future in which all or virtually all of the mutations associated with a particular disease or predisposition to disease are known, genetic family history and the results from supplemental genetic testing of family members may cease to be of much, if any, medical importance. At present, that future seems far off. Genetic relationship has also assumed greater medical importance due to developments in the field of organ and tissue transplantation.

3 See, e.g., Finkler, Kaja, The Kin in the Gene: The Medicalization of Family and Kinship in American Society, 42 Current Anthropolgy 235 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 After conducting interviews with adoptees searching for their birth parents, Finkler concludes:

Id at 241.

5 See, e.g., Genes and Human Self-Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Reflections on Modern Genetics (Robert F. Weir et al. eds., 1994); Dorothy Nelkin & M. Susan Lindee, the Dna Mystique: the Gene as A Cultural Icon (1995).

6 For a more extensive analysis of the three terms, see Wachbroit, Robert, Genetic Determinism, Genetic Reductionism, and Genetic Essentialism, in 1 Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues in Biotechnology 352-56 (Thomas H. Murray & Maxwell J. Mehlman eds., 2001)Google Scholar.

7 A “category mistake” occurs when one ascribes to something of one category a feature attributable only to another or otherwise misrepresents the category to which something belongs. Oxford Companion to Philosophy 126 (Ted Honderich ed., 1995). For example, free will is a metaphysical view, not an empirical hypothesis, hence the belief that the identification of causal (e.g., genetic) factors for behavior “disproves” free will rests on a category mistake. See Brock, Dan W. & Buchanan, Allen E., The Genetics of Behavior and Concepts of Free Will and Determinism, in Genetics and Criminality: the Potential Misuse of Scientific Information in Court 67-75 (Jeffrey R. Botkin et al. eds., 1999)Google Scholar.

8 Social Services Amendments of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93-647, 88 Stat. 2337 (1975) (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 651-665 (1994)). For more comprehensive evaluations of paternity establishment efforts under Title IV of the Social Security Act, as amended, see, for example, U.S. Dep't. of Health Human Servs., Office of Inspector Gen., Pub. No. OEI-06-98-00054, Paternity Establishment: State Use of Genetic Testing (1999); Nat'l Women's L. Ctr. & Ctr. on Fathers, Families, and Pub. Pol'y; Family Ties: Improving Paternity Establishment Practices and Procedures for Low-Income Mothers, Fathers and Children (2000) [hereinafter Family Ties]; Paula Roberts, Ctr. for L. & Soc. Pol'y, Biology and Beyond: The Case for Passage of the New Uniform Parentage Act (2000). For a range of perspectives on child support issues, including the effects of recent federal legislation, see Child Support: The Next Frontier (J. Thomas Oldham & Marygold S. Melli eds., 2000).

9 Family Support Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-485, 102 Stat. 2343 (codified in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.).

10 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-66, § 13721, 107 Stat. 312 (codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 666(a)(5) (West 2001)).

11 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-193, §103, 110 Stat. 2258 (codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 601 (West 2001)).

12 U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Office of Child Support Enforcement, Twenty-Third Annual Report to Congress, Table 25: Expenditures for Laboratory Tests for Paternity Establishment (1998), available at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/rpt/annrpt23/ index.html (last visited May 20, 2002).

13 See, e.g., Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.108 (2001) (requiring parents of young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 and enrolled in college, to pay child support provided that the parents are divorced from one another or never married to one another). The Oregon law was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court inCrocker v. Crocker, 22 P.3d 759 (Or. 2001)).

14 See sources citedinfra note 18.

15 E.g., “Economic fatherhood is now the primary concern of the law.” Nancy E. Dowd, Redefining Fatherhood 93 (2000). Concerning any additional yields from child support enforcement, such as more personal involvement on the part of fathers who pay, or improvements along noneconomic dimensions of child well-being, the evidence is equivocal. See Seltzer, Judith A., Child Support and Child Access: Experiences of Divorced and Nonmarital Families, in Child Support: The Next Frontier, supra note 8, at 69-87Google Scholar; see also Laura M. Argys et al., The Impact of Child Support on Cognitive Outcomes of Young Children, 35 Demography 159 (1998); Judith A. Seltzer, Consequences of Marital Dissolution for Children, 20 Ann. Rev. Soc. 235 (1994).

16 See, e.g., Paternity of Cheryl, 746 N.E.2d 488 (Mass. 2001); K.B. v. D.B., 639 N.E.2d 725 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994); Monmouth County Div. of Soc. Servs. v. R.K., 757 A.2d 319 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 2000)

17 Nancy E. Yaffe, A Fathers' Rights Perspective on Custody Law in California: Would You Believe It If I Told You That the Law Is Fair to Fathers?, 4 S. Cal. Interdisciplinary L.J. 135, 137-39 (1995). See generally Dowd, supra note 15.

Jeffrey Leving, Think Legal Rights on Father's Day, San Diego Union-Trib., June 17, 2001, at G3. Leving is a member of the board of directors of ACFC. He also serves on the Congressional task force on Fathers, Families and Public Policy. See also Steve Bailey, What About the Woman?, Boston Globe, Apr. 27, 2001, at Dl (“Make no mistake. This is a case not about fatherhood; no court can make a man a father. It is, plain and simple, about only one issue: Who pays?”).

19 Miscovich v. Miscovich, 688 A.2d 726 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997), aff'd, 720 A.2d 764 (Pa. 1998), cert, denied, 526 U.S. 1113 (1999). As Janet Dolgin points out, one of the ironies of the Miscovich case is that Gerald Miscovich had neither a biological nor a social relationship with the child for whom he continues to be financially responsible as the legal father. Janet L. Dolgin, Choice, Tradition, and the New Genetics: The Fragmentation of the Ideology of Family, 32 Conn. L. Rev. 523, 532 (2000).

20 Paternity of Cheryl, 746 N.E.2d 488.

21 See, e.g., Christopher Quinn, As DNA Tests Rule Out Paternity, Men Sue to Stop Support Payments, Atlanta J. & Const., May 16, 2001, at 1A (“DNA tests clear nearly one of every three men who contest paternity when named as fathers by women applying for state assistance.”); “At least somebody should get a chance for their freedom here. The innocent man should always be allowed to be set free, based on the evidence.” CBS Early Show (CBS television broadcast, Apr. 18, 2000) (transcript of interview with Carnell Smith, director of U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud).

22 “It's amazing to me that the same evidence that can be used to convict an individual is not readily used to exonerate an individual. You can't have it both ways. If this is the high-tech science we both know it is, the court has to deal with the results, despite the extenuating circumstances.” Steve Duin, This DNA Test Is a Test of His Patience, The Oregonian, June 6, 2000, at B01 (quoting Brad Popovich, Director of the DNA Diagnostic Lab at Oregon Health Sciences University).

23 U.S. Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, at http://www.patemityfraud.com.

24 E.g., DNA Testing Is Causing State Courts to Relook at Laws Regarding Paternity (Nat'l Pub. Radio: All Things Considered, Apr. 9. 2001) (interviewing the acknowledged father who was challenging child support obligations inCheryl, who expressed continuing affection for the child).

25 On suits against mothers for misrepresentation of paternity, see Linda L. Berger, Lies Between Mommy and Daddy: The Case for Recognizing Spousal Emotional Distress Claims Based on Domestic Deceit that Interferes with Parent-Child Relationships, 33 Loyola L.A. L. Rev. 449, 501-508(2000).

26 Willing, Richard, DNA and Daddy Explosion of Technology Is Straining Family Ties, USA Today, July 29, 1999, at 1AGoogle Scholar.

27 E.R. (NBC television broadcast Oct. 14th, 1999.)

28 DNA Diagnostics Center lists media outlets that have utilized its services, at, www.dnacenter.com/media.html. See also the website of paternity consultant Allen G. Gelb listing multiple appearances on Sally Jessy Raphael Show, among others, at http://PaternityTesting.com/ refs.html.

29 Deborah Smith, Mothers Kept in the Dark on Paternity Tests, Sydney Morning Herald, Mar. 27, 2000, at 5. See also Carrie Ferguson, DNA Testing Can Be A Dirty Job; But For the Lab Technicians Who Do It Every Day, Helping to Catch Criminals Makes Up for the Unsavory Aspects, The Tennessean, Apr. 15, 2001, at 8; Mary McLachlin, Divorce Twist: Wife Says DNA Test Proves His Tryst, Palm Beach Post, Dec. 26, 2000, at 1A; Dewey Webb, Semen Says; Valley Lab Aims to Catch Adulterers with Their Dirty Underpants Down, Phoenix New Times, Aug. 17, 2000.

30 Barbara K. Rothman, Recreating Motherhood: Ideology and Technology in A Patriarchal Society 225 (1989). See also Jean E. McEwen, Genetic Information, Ethics, and Information Relating to Biological Parenthood, in Encyclopedia of Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues in Biotechnology, supra note 5, at 356-63. McEwen's article includes an excellent discussion of the clinician's dilemma when misattributed paternity comes to light through genetic testing for nonidentification purposes.

31 Brooks Egerton, DNA Tests Don't Let Dads Off the Hook: Man Supports Sons Not Biologically His, Dallas Morning News, Oct. 31, 1999, at 1A.

32 Jared Diamond, The Third Chimpanzee 85-87 (1992).

David P. Barash & Judith Eve Lipton, The Myth of Monogamy: Fidelity and Infidelity in Animals and People 12 (2001). See also Tim Birkhead, Promiscuity (2000).

34 Bartlett, Katherine T., 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.

35 Id. at 887-88.

36 Id. at 889 (quoting 2 S. Pufendorf, On the Law of Nature and Nations, ch. 2, § 4, at 915 (C. Oldfather & W. Oldfather trans., 1934).

37 In re Findlay, 253 N.Y. 1, 8 (1930).

38 Altenbemd, Chris W., Quasi-Marital Children: The Common Law's Failure in Privette and Daniel Calls for Statutory Reform, 26 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 219, 236 (1999)Google Scholar.

39 Shapiro, E. Donald et al., The DNA Paternity Test: Legislating the Future Paternity Action, 1 J.L. & Health 1, 9 (1992-93)Google Scholar.

40 Id. at 10.

41 Id. at 11.

42 Bartlett, supra note 34, at 893 (quoting Wilson v. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, 26 (1910)).

43 Wilsonv. Mitchell, 111 P. 21, at 38-39.

44 Id. at 34.

45 Joseph Goldstein Et Al., Beyond the Best Interests of the Child 7-8 (1979).

46 Id.

47 Id. at 12.

48 Id.

49 Id .at 31.

50 Id. at 40.

51 Id. at 49.

52 Id. at 50. Goldstein and colleagues actually propose that courts look for the “least detrimental alternative” for the child, rather than attempting to determine the “best interests of the child.” The first formulation serves as a reminder of the limits of what law (and life) allow one to achieve.

53 Bartlett, supra note 34, at 884.

54 See generally Jon Elster, Solomonic Judgments: Against the Best Interest of the Child, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1 (1987) (contending that the legal standards governing custody disputes are indeterminate).

55 See Schoeman, Ferdinand, Rights of Children, Rights of Parents, and the Moral Basis of the Family, 91 Ethics 6 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Milton C. Regan, Jr., Family Law and the Pursuit of Intimacy (1993).

56 Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, Hatching the Egg: A Child-centered Perspective on Parents' Rights, 14 Cardozo L. Rev. 1747, 1754 (1993). Woodhouse defines “generism” as a critical perspective “that would evaluate parents' authority over children and their obligations to children, and to each other, through the lens of children's needs and experiences.” Id. at 1749.

57 Shapiro et al., supra note 39, at 16.

58 Id.

59 Thomas H. Murray, The Worth of A child 58 (1996).

60 Id. at 61.

61 Id. at 108-11.

62 491 U.S. 110(1989).

63 Id. at 113.

64 Id. at 114.

65 Id.

66 Id. at 115.

67 Id. at 115-16.

68 Id. at 116.

69 Id. at l18. Actually, evolutionary biologists and anthropologists now tell us that nature does make provision for dual fatherhood. Anthropologists have identified sixteen societies in South America marked by a belief in “partible paternity,” “the conviction that it is possible, even necessary, for a child to have more than one biological father.” Anonymous, Science and Technology: Paternity Test, 350 The Economist 74, 75 (1999). Offspring with two to three males in the father role seem to fare the best. Barash & Lipton, supra note 33, at 159.

70 Michael H., 491 U.S. at 123 n.2.

71 Id. at 71 n.4.

72 Id. at 140.

73 Id. at 148. Others assert that “father” is a legal construction, not a biological fact. See In re J.W.T., 872 S.W.2d 189, 216 (Tex. 1994) (Cornyn, J., dissenting). Again inSmith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality and Reform, 431 U.S. 816 (1977), Justice Brennan, this time writing for the majority, stressed the centrality of biology to family and suggested that solicitude for a constitutionally protected liberty interest founded on blood relationship with a child precludes similar concern for competing interests founded on social relationship.

74 Merkel v. Doe, 635 N.E.2d 70, 72-75 (Ohio Ct. Com. PI. 1993).

75 Id. at 72.

76 In nrey.ff.r.,872S.W.2dat 197.

77 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3113.2111(B)(1).

78 Id. § 3113.2111(B)(2).

79 Id. § 3113.2111(G).

80 OhioH.B. 242 § 3 (1999).

81 Uniform Parentage Act (2000).

82 Id. §§ 602, 606.

83 Id. § 607(a). There is one exception: a proceeding to disprove a father-child relationship if a court determines that the mother and presumed father had no intimate contact during the probable time of conception and the presumed father never openly treated the child as his own. Id. § 607(b). It appears that this exception would not survive a divorce, since the UPA 2000 provides that a final order expressly identifying a child as a “child of the marriage” or providing for support by the husband is an adjudication of parentage and can be used as a defense by a third party in a subsequent proceeding. Id. § 637(c).

84 The doctrine of estoppel is typically invoked when a person asserts a right at odds with a prior course of conduct in a dispute with others who relied on that conduct to their detriment. Technically, the estoppel doctrine does not create a legal status, but rather precludes someone from opposing that status. Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution 229 (Tentative Draft No. 4, 2000). Although historically courts have been reluctant to impose obligations based on estoppel arguments where the detrimental reliance alleged is emotional rather than financial, there are signs of a shift in some recent cases. See Laurence C. Nolan, 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).

85 Uniform Parentage Act § 608(a).

86 Id. § 608(b).

87 Id. § 608(c).

88 Id. § 608(d).

89 Id. § 637(b).

90 Id. § 621(c).

91 Proposed Revisions of the Uniform Parentage Act § 621, cmt. (Discussion Draft 2000). This language does not appear in the final document.

92 One laboratory advertising of home identity testing explicitly recognizes the possibility of a two-step process: “Fairfax Identity Laboratories would like to be clear: if your results do have to be presented in a legal proceeding, then HIT™ may not be suitable for you. It can, however, be used to give a preliminary answer prior to having the sort of test performed that requires the proper chain of custody.” Fairfax Identity Labs., Home Identity Testing (HIT™), at http://www.fairfaxidlab.com/idlab/hitcopy.html (last visited Mar. 31, 2002). Where testing is performed at a laboratory, greater control is possible. For example, CBR Laboratories states that as a matter of policy it requires an order for testing from a lawyer, doctor, nurse practitioner, representative of the court, Department of Social Services or Department of Revenue. In addition, the person seeking testing of a child, if not accompanied by the mother, must show proof of custodial rights. CBR Labs., Paternity Testing: Frequently Asked Questions, at http://www.cbrlabs.com/paternityfaq.html (last visited Mar. 31, 2002).

Largely in response to mail order or home testing, the United Kingdom established an ad hoc Group on Genetic Paternity Testing Services to develop a code of conduct for laboratories performing testing, Ad Hoc Group on Genetic Paternity Testing Servs., Code of Practice and Guidance (2001). The code is not itself law, but through other law it is binding on courts in ordering testing, and government agencies and public bodies are also expected to comply. See Rosemary Bennett, Paternity Test Companies to Get Code of Conduct, Financial Times (London), Mar. 24, 2001, at 2. In the United States, the standards of accreditation agencies address such matters as informed consent and confidentiality, but accreditation is voluntary. See. e.g., Am. Ass'n of Blood Banks, Standards for Parentage Testing Laboratories (4th ed. 1999).

93 Tex. Family Code Ann. § 160 (Vernon 2002); Wash Rev. Code Ann. § 26.26 (West 2002). Texas substituted a four year time limitation for the UPA 2000's two year limitation. Tex. Family Code Ann. § 160.607.

94 In Minnesota, H.B. 2478 and S.B. 2335 have been carried over to 2002; in West Virginia, H.B. 2522 was introduced in January 2002. For defenses of the new UPA, see Roberts, supra note 8; Battle Robinson & Susan Paikin, Who Is Daddy? A Case for the Uniform Parentage Act (2000), 19 Del. Lawyer 23 (2001).

95 To date, the American Law Institute has produced a series of four “Tentative Drafts,” with some overlap between the different versions. At the time this Article went to press, the final version was announced but not yet available to the public.

96 Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations § 2.03, 201-32 (Tentative Draft No. 4, 2000) (additional discussion at xxxvi-ii). The comments to the definitional section include a review of the case law. The drafters conclude that, at present, many courts “decline to apply any equitable theory, even under very compelling circumstances.” Id. at 230-31.

97 Id. § 3.02A, 282-96. Concerning the interaction between equitable theories and the marital presumption, seeid. at 292-96. Diane Kaplan notes: “Unlike equitable estoppel, which penalizes the offending party, paternity by estoppel penalizes an innocent party—the husband—to avoid penalizing another innocent party—the child.” Diane S. Kaplan, Why Truth is Not a Defense in Paternity Actions, 10 Tex. J. Women & L. 69, 74 (2000). Kaplan also discussesK.B. v. D.B., 639 N.E.2d 725 (Mass. App. Ct. 1994), in which a Massachusetts court declined to apply the doctrine of paternity by estoppel in a case involving the marital presumption. The court said a husband had no more duty to support a child resulting from his wife's extra-marital affair than a wife would have a duty to support a child resulting from her husband's extra-marital affair. Also, the court worried that application of the estoppel doctrine would create incentives for men to end or avoid relationships with children in doubtful cases. Id. at 76-80.

98 These issues may be intertwined. The draft of the introduction to the ALI Principles describes “predictability vs. individualized decisionmaking” as one of the “unavoidable tensions” in fashioning law. Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations 1 (Tentative Draft No. 3, 1998) (the others are finality vs. flexibility, judicial supervision vs. private ordering, biological vs. de facto parenthood, and protection vs. [family] privacy.). The “best interests of the child” standard has been criticized for creating unpredictability, and similar concerns have been raised about interest balancing approaches. Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations 32-34 (Tentative Draft No. 4). Those seeking a more objective standard often tum to nature or science—in the 1960s and 1970s, the social sciences, and now, the science of the genome. See Michael Grossberg, How to Give the Present a Past? Family Law in the United States 1950-2000, in Cross Currents: Family Law and Policy in the U.S. and England 17-19 (Sanford N. Katz et al. eds., 2000).

99 For an in-depth analysis of the distinctiveness of Native American cultural traditions, see Barbara A. Atwood, Tribal Jurisprudence and Cultural Meanings of the Family, 79 Neb. L. Rev. 577 (2000).

100 philosophical treatments of the parent-child relationship, the significance of genetic versus other forms of connection, and sources of identity, include Jeffrey Blustein, Parents and Children: the Ethics of the Family (1982); Kindred Matters: Rethinking the Philosophy of the Family (Diana Tietjens et al. eds., 1993); Murray, supra note 59; James L. Nelson, Genetic Narratives: Biology, Stories, and the Definition of the Family, 2 Health Matrix 71 (1992). As for empirical research, findings are beginning to emerge from studies of the effects of adoption and assisted reproduction involving donor gametes on parenting and child welfare. See, e.g.; Susan Golombok, Parenting: What Really Counts? (2000); Susan Golombok et al., Social Versus Biological Parenting: Family Functioning and the Socio-emotional Development of Children Conceived by Egg or Sperm Donation, 40 J. Child Psychology & Psychiatry 519 (1999); Jennifer E. Lansford et al., Does Family Structure Matter? A Comparison of Adoptive, Two-Parent Biological, Single-Mother, Stepfather, and Stepmother Households, 63 J. Marriage & Family 840 (2001); A.J. Turner & A. Coyle, What Does It Mean to Be a Donor Offspring? The Identity Experiences of Adults Conceived by Donor Insemination and the Implications for Counseling and Therapy, 15 Human Reproduction 2041 (2001).

101 Wendy Kaminer, Fathers in Court, Am. Prospect, Oct. 9, 2000, at 62.

102 Id. The right to the truth about one's identity has emerged as an issue in international human rights law as a consequence of the family dislocations produced by kidnappings and killings during Argentina's “Dirty War.” Some of the children of the disappeared were taken as well, and several were adopted by captors. See Laura Oren, Righting Child Custody Wrongs; The Children of the 'Disappeared' in Argentina, 14 Harv. Human Rights L.J. 123 (2001). The organization representing the families of the disappeared, theAbuelas de Plaza de Mayo, lobbied for the inclusion of a right to preservation of identity in a new United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Id. at 175. Articles Seven, Eight and Nine of the Convention, mark a compromise. Statements concerning rights to know and be cared from by parents (Article Seven) and to preserve one's identity, including nationality, name and family relations (Article Eight), are qualified by references to national law. Article Nine provides that “States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child “ G.A. Res. 44/25, U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 49, at 167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989). The references to “parents” are ambiguous, as the term is not defined or qualified by an adjective such as “birth” or “natural.” In ratifying the Convention, the United Kingdom made a declaration that it interprets the references to parents to mean “only those persons who, as a matter of national law, are treated as parents.” U.N. Treaty Collection, Declarations and Reservations, at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/treatyl5_asp.htm (last visited May. 15, 2002).

Courts in the United States have rejected claims that there is a fundamental right to know one's genealogical origin in the adoption context. See, e.g., In re Roger B., 418 N.E.2d 751 (111. 1981). See also Lori B. Andrews, Gen-Etiquette: Genetic Information, Family Relationships, and Adoption, in Genetic Secrets: Protecting Privacy and Confidentiality in the Genetic Era (Mark A. Rothstein ed., 1998); Lori B. Andrews & Nanette Elster, Adoption, Reproductive Technologies, and Genetic Information, 8 Health Matrix 125 (1998). On the other hand, the author of a study of Canadian law concludes that “the judiciary seems to be emphasizing, without providing any detailed justification, a general belief in the social worth of knowing one's biological heritage.” Timothy Caulfield, Canadian Family Law and the Genetic Revolution: A Survey of Cases Involving Paternity Testing, 26 Queen's L.J. 67, 89-90 (2000). He finds evidence of the same trend in European law. Id. at 75-76.

103 Allen Gelb, proprietor of a high profile paternity consulting and testing business stated, “If a father's been there a long time, he should remain the daddy. Whatever he does with the information, though, he has a right to know if he's the biological father.” Adam Pertman, DNA Tests Emerging As Legal Weapon in Child Support Cases, Boston Globe, July 23, 2000, at Al. Nancy Dowd makes the case for knowledge, but within a feminist framework that challenges all vestiges of patriarchy. Dowd argues for paternity testing to establish biological identity and insure access to medical information for the child's benefit. Biological paternity would not determine legal fatherhood, however, nor would marriage to the mother. The rights and responsibilities associated with social connection (e.g., visitation or custody) would be established based on a standard of social fathering and the best interests of the child. Dowd argues for an uncoupling of social connection and economic responsibility, not only for fathers of nonmarital children, but for all fathers. Dowd, supra note 15, at 213-31.

104 See Katharine T. Bartlett, Re-Expressing Parenthood, 98 Yale L.J. 293 (1998); Katharine T. Bartlett, Rethinking Parenthood, supra note 34.

105 Concerning the disclosure debate, see, for example, Andrews & Elster, supra note 102; K.R. Daniels & P. Thorn, Sharing Information with Donor Insemination Offspring: A Child-Conception Versus a Family-Building Approach, 16 Human Reproduction 1792 (2001); Lucy Frith, Gamete Donation and Anonymity: The Ethical and Legal Debate, 16 Human Reproduction 818 (2001); Glenn McGee et al., Disclosure to Children Conceived with Donor Gametes Should Not Be Optional, 16 Human Reproduction 2033 (2001); A. McWhinnie, Gamete Donation and Anonymity: Should Offspring from Donated Gametes Continue to Be Denied Knowledge of Their Origins and Antecedents?, 16 Human Reproduction 807 (2001); Pasquale Patrizio et al., Disclosure to Children Conceived with Donor Gametes Should Be Optional, 16 Human Reproduction 2036 (2001). Should human cloning become a reality, the possible permutations increase. See Nanette Elster, Who Is the Parent in Cloning?, 27 Hofstra L. Rev. 533 (1999). For an argument that the dilemmas associated with technological conception are best managed through an interpretative approach that elicits principles of decision from more traditional parentage conflicts, see Marsha Garrison, Law Making for Baby Making: An Interpretive Approach to the Determination of Legal Parentage, 113 Harv. L. Rev. 835 (2000).

106 For example, some argue that, at least in the context of U.S. culture, men and women respond differently to the prospect of rearing a child with whom they have no genetic connection. See, e.g., Gay Becker, the Elusive Embryo: How Women and Me N Approach New Reproductive Technologies 60-78 (2000); Mary Briody Mahowald, Genetic Versus Gestational Ties to Children, in Genes, Women, Equality 128-42 (2000). Concerns about justice emerge due to what has been labeled the “dual system of family law,” a system that “promotes liberationist policies for the middle and upper classes and repressive ones for the lower classes.” See Grossberg, supra note 98, at 19. Under the current child support collection regime, the privacy of poor women and men counts for little, and states have strong incentives to do whatever it takes to get an acknowledgement of paternity. See Roberts, supra note 8, at 2.

107 Ellen Goodman, What Makes a Father?, Baltimore Sun, May 1, 2001, at 11A.