Parentage committee finishes discussion of multiparent provisions for children conceived by sexual intercourse and starts discussion of donors
June 24, 2022
BY Alison Wilkinson
In June, BCLI’s Parentage Law Reform Project Committee finalized its discussion of whether multiparent configurations should be extended to conception by sexual intercourse. This topic has been the subject of discussion for several consecutive meetings starting in March 2022, and continuing at the April 2022 and May 2022 meetings.
Who should be made a parent by a multiparent agreement?
At this meeting, the Committee turned its attention to the issue of who should be required to become a parent by a multiparent agreement. Ontario and Saskatchewan have taken different approaches to this issue. In Ontario, parties to the agreement are parents. In Saskatchewan, parties to the agreement may or may not be parents. In British Columbia, section 30 of the Family Law Act, states that all parties to a multiparent agreement for children conceived through assisted reproduction are parents.
The Committee started by considering whether certain key individuals should be required to become parents. For example, should a birth parent be required to become a parent? Should a sperm provider be required to become a parent? If so, why should these individuals be captured? If not, what are the possible ramifications for other parties and the child? Issues of particular interest included: agreement timing, competing status (donor versus parent), and concurrent agreements. For example, how would sperm donation by sexual intercourse impact a multiparent agreement for children conceived through sexual intercourse?
Donors & parentage
The Committee then moved to the issue of donors and parentage. The first topic for consideration was the definition of donor in the Family Law Act and whether it should be aligned with the definition of donor in the Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Conversation centered around clarity. The Family Law Act definition of donor is useful because its meaning is largely intuitive (i.e., a donor is donating reproductive material for others to use). The Committee also discussed the distinct objectives and applications of the two acts, and how this impacts definitions.
Following this discussion, the Committee briefly turned their attention to the issue of contact between (non-parent) donors and the child. This is where the Committee will continue its work in July.
The goal of these discussions is to develop tentative recommendations to reform part 3 for a public consultation to be held later in the life of the project.
