Family law implications of human reproductive cloning technology

¶ … science marches forward, reproductive cloning of humans will likely become a reality. It has already been accomplished with dogs, cats, cows and monkeys. This means that one day a person will be able to have a child with his/her own cells. What do you think some of the family law issues will be as this form of alternative reproduction becomes a reality?

As soon as Dr. Ian Wilmut made a breakthrough announcement that he, and his team, had successfully cloned an adult sheep in 1997, the salience of the controversy about cloning humans and genetic modifications in the human genome virtually erupted (Rose, 1999). It became clear at this point that it was feasibly possible to conduct a range of scientifically assisted reproduction such as human cloning for example. There could also be a mix of genetic information bestowed on a child. For example, family planning could resemble something along the lines of ordering a new car. Parents could theoretically choose the various features that their child gets from each parent. For example, a parent might want their child to be male, six feet tall, with brown hair, blue eyes, courteous and respectful, with above average intelligence, and a propensity for intellectual investigation on a high level. Soon, with the miracles of science, such an order could be possible in the near future.

This will have vast implications for family law. Whereas presently, a child has roughly an equally split amount of genetic information from both the mother and the father, in the future this may not be the case. For example, if a mother cloned herself but was married at the time, would the father (or marital partner) be entitled the same visitation as he would be if he had fathered the child himself? The answer to such a question is far from clear. There will undoubtedly be arguments made in reference to contractual rights that develop with the new technologies that will be in shape contrast from the actual best interest of the child. Furthermore, since much of the technology will be patented, this will also add a new dynamic into family law (Torrance, 2010).

Question Two

2. Mediation is seen as a relatively successful alternative to adversarial court proceedings when determining issues involving divorce, custody, support and property distribution. But a question remains as to whether mediation or any other form of alternative dispute resolution is appropriate in stances of alleged child abuse and neglect? Would a non-adversarial alternative dispute resolution method be more effective in accomplishing the goals of child abuse and neglect proceedings? Should the children themselves be involved?

Question Three

3. There is a movement around the country to create "integrated" courts. In these courts, one judge would consider all matters involving one family so that a single decision-maker would understand all of the issues facing the parents and children, including delinquency, domestic violence, abuse and neglect, divorce, custody, support, and so on. What are the potential problems with this system and do they outweigh the benefits?

Answer Three

The movement to create an integrated court system that can serve the needs of one particular family (one judge, one family) has grown out of the desire to have a judge who can familiarize themselves with all of the factors which center around one particular family. The argument has been made that such an individual would be inherently more capable of efficiently addressing family issues, such as domestic violence, because they would have more knowledge about the particulars of the circumstance. In New York for example, has undertaken a unique effort to re-engineer the state court system's response to domestic violence to better reflect the complicated reality of its impact on families (Aldrich, 2010). Such cases can have a serious impact upon the family, children in particular, and having all of the various court functions under a single judge is thought to have better results for the overall health of the individuals involved.

However, the efforts to bypass judicial pluralism have not come without criticism. By bypassing the traditional court and justice models which center on pluralism, the family is putting their entire case in the hands of one individual. This judge has the power to either do great good or potentially also great harm if they do not effectively mitigate the situation that arises. Research has demonstrated that the functionality of criminal courts is compromised by persistent process failures in dealing with domestic violence, and shows both the synergy between defendants' rights and victims' needs, and the inadequacy of evaluating domestic violence policies without taking court pluralism into account (MacDowell, 2011). This suggests that court pluralism may offer benefits that outweigh the potential advantages of integrated courts.