Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros37Articles thématiquesFrom adoption to assisted reprodu...

Articles thématiques

From adoption to assisted reproduction: frameworks, practices and issues surrounding the question of origins and its narratives

Agnès Martial, Isabel Côté et Kévin Lavoie
Traduction de Valentina Baslyk
Cet article est une traduction de :
De l’adoption à la procréation assistée par autrui : cadres, pratiques et enjeux entourant la question des origines et de ses récits [fr]

Résumés

Cadre de la recherche : Dans un contexte caractérisé par de nouvelles aspirations à la parentalité, au sein de sociétés où les formes familiales se diversifient, la question des origines suscite actuellement d’intenses débats politiques, sociaux et scientifiques. Ces débats sont emblématiques d’un mouvement plus général, qui témoigne d’une attention croissante à la question des origines dans les modes actuels de constitution des familles, qu’il s’agisse de l’adoption ou de la procréation assistée par autrui. La notion d’origine apparaît alors comme une entrée particulièrement pertinente pour éclairer les enjeux sociaux et politiques que soulèvent aujourd’hui le devenir de l’adoption, les conditions du recours à la procréation assistée avec don, l’encadrement législatif de la gestation pour autrui ou les usages des savoirs biogénétiques, ainsi que pour analyser les reconfigurations contemporaines de la parenté et des liens familiaux.

Objectifs : Cet article a pour objectif de cerner les principaux enjeux qui sous-tendent la question des origines en retraçant les conditions d’émergence des discours sur le sujet de même qu’en faisant dialoguer les différents apports disciplinaires permettant d’en délimiter les contours.

Méthodologie : Cet article s’appuie sur les différentes contributions des auteurs et autrices du numéro, de même que sur les travaux théoriques et empiriques qui retracent comment la question des origines est mobilisée par les personnes concernées par l’adoption de même que par la procréation assistée par autrui. Pour en rendre compte, la perspective comparative est valorisée.

Résultats : L’attention aux origines révèle une évolution profonde liée à la dissociation croissante de la procréation et de la parenté, d’où semblent émerger des relations et des figures « nouvelles ». L’essor des technologies de la reproduction rend aujourd’hui plus nombreuses les circonstances, déjà présentes dans l’adoption, où des personnes procréent, mais ne deviennent pas – au sens légal - des parents, demeurant « aux marges » de la parenté.

Conclusion : La notion d’origines offre un lieu d’examen particulièrement fécond des représentations et interprétations actuelles concernant les figures de l’origine (« parents » de naissance dans l’adoption, donneurs et donneuses de gamètes, femmes ayant porté un enfant pour autrui), les récits qui les constituent, la place qu’elles occupent (ou non) dans l’histoire des individus adoptés ou nés de la procréation par autrui.

Contribution : Cet article apporte une réflexion théorique et heuristique sur la notion des origines tout en témoignant de sa pertinence pour réfléchir aux réalités relationnelles plurielles induites par les configurations familiales actuelles. L’ensemble des articles de ce numéro participe à cette réflexion en interrogeant la question des origines de manière complémentaire.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

1The issue of identifying one's origins has appeared or resurfaced in social and political debates for several decades, as ways of procreating and living in families have diversified. The concept of origins appears to be subject to multiple interpretations, narratives and practices. For those abandoned or adopted, as for those conceived through the involvement of third parties, whether via egg or sperm donation or surrogacy, the search for "personal origins" sometimes leads to lengthy identity quests. One's origins can also remain secret, be denied or be considered unimportant. In the end, they are embodied in different narratives intended for the children of adoptive families, or for those who owe their existence to egg or sperm donation or surrogacy.

2Whatever its uses, the notion of origins runs through personal and family histories, providing a new perspective on our concepts of kinship and identity, and a notably heuristic starting point for analyzing current family configurations. The connection with origins is at the heart of recent developments and new practices in adoption at home or internationally. In families with members conceived with the help of a third party, it raises questions about the role of those who donated their eggs or sperm or of the woman who carried a child for another person. It also has an impact on the composition of the parental couple and the family network of children adopted or born from assisted reproduction.

3In adoptive families and families created through egg/sperm donation or surrogacy, these configurations increase the number of persons involved in the conception or education of a child, thus ushering in a novel plurality of relations (Fine, 2001; Martial, 2019). Fathers and mothers (biological, adoptive, intentional), "birth" parents, genitor, donor, and surrogate are thus distinguished, contrasted or confused, in common language as well as among specialists, in an attempt to describe increasingly complex family links (Brunet et al., 2013). The notion of "multi-parenting" thus makes it possible to explore the many dimensions of relationships among people: biogenetics, voluntary and elective acts, and the affective, nourishing and "practical" experience of kinship, as well as its symbolic and legal aspects (Martial, 2003; Weber, 2013).

4Relationships associated with origins then appear to be ties that are quite unique. Since they originate in a procreative event, they are based on "nature," considered the most powerful metaphor for kinship in our societies (Schneider, 1968). However, they are not generally rooted in any emotional or daily experience of kinship and, if identified, are not legally recognized in terms of filiation or rights to personal relationships. They are also virtual, potentially but not necessarily usable to define identity, since the quest for origins is only undertaken or claimed by some of the people concerned. Moreover, the origin stories told to children conceived by donor/sperm donation or by surrogacy take very diverse forms.

5Along with filiation, a legal bond that includes the child in a kinship group, and parenthood as a way of acting and taking care of the child, the notion of origin invites us to question the existence of relationships that may be added to a child's parentage by one or more persons other than their father(s) and mother(s) taking part in their procreation (Martial, 2019). How do institutions deal with these relationships? How are they treated in social and medical practices? How are they perceived by people who were adopted or born of donation or surrogacy, and to what discourses, narratives and practices do they give rise in the families concerned?

6To answer these questions, articles from various disciplines have been aggregated in this issue, including anthropology, sociology, social work, psychology and law. A number of methodological approaches are presented: an analysis of legal systems; a study of institutional practices –­ administrative, social and medical –­ and of the elements (administrative files, interactions on socio-digital networks, genetic tests) which support the determination of parentage; and the exploration, in families, of the representations, significance and lived experience of the concept of origins. The comparison focuses on Quebec and France, two countries where this issue is particularly topical due to recent or ongoing legislative changes, but a study of other cultural, legal or national contexts would allow for a broader comparative approach.

Toward increasing access to discovering one's origins: from the easing of institutional secrecy to digital quest

7In the last decades of the 20th century, access to information about personal origins, an issue raised by various activist movements, entered the social and political debates of many European and North American countries. This occurred in two areas: first, in adoption, and then twenty years later, in assisted reproduction with third-party donors. Since the early 2000s, several developments have led to an appreciation and growing recognition that persons who were either adopted or born through donation have access to information about their personal origins.

The regulation of the relationship to origins in adoptive situations

8From an anthropological perspective, adoption brings to light the exclusivity principle of filiation in contemporary Western societies (Fine, 1998; Ouellette, 2000; Fonseca, 2011). The full adoption model first established in North America and then in Europe during the 20th century effectively replaced the child's links to their origins with those connecting them to their adoptive parents. Adoption records were kept confidential and the identity of "birth parents" was secret (Modell, 1994; Fine, 2000). However, by the 21st century, this was no longer standard practice in Europe. Germany and Switzerland considered access to information about one's origins to be guaranteed by the constitution. In 1975, Great Britain allowed adoptees who had reached their age of majority to obtain a copy of their birth certificate containing the names of their birth parents. In Belgium, the original birth certificate is simply amended by a note in the margins that refers to the adoption, and since 2003, the law stipulates that the appropriate authorities must maintain and ensure the child’s access to information about their origins. Since 1999, Spain has considered article 47 of the Civil Status Law, which allowed anonymous childbirth, unconstitutional. On the other hand, anonymous childbirth still exists in Italy, Luxembourg, as well as in France (Mignot, 2015a), where the existence of "birth under X" gave rise to heated debates in the 1990s.

  • 1 In France, these demands were made by the "angry Xs" (Les X en colères), the "shadow mothers” (Les (...)
  • 2 For example, Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Convention relative aux (...)

9By the end of the 20th century, this legislation was challenged on several fronts: as demands presented by abandoned or adopted persons, as well as by birth parents hoping to make their identity known;1 the public's growing awareness of psychological and psychoanalytical studies emphasizing the importance of origins in the creation of one’s identity and the psychological well-being of an individual; the recognition, in supranational conventions, of the individual's right to access this knowledge.2 Concerning the "births under X," intense discussions in France pit the right of children to know their personal origins against the right of women to make their own decisions about their maternity. This debate ultimately led to the creation of the National Council for Access to Personal Origins (Conseil national pour l’accès aux origines personnelles, CNAOP). It is a compromise between accommodating women who gave birth secretly and allowing the child to eventually seek information, as well as following up on requests for access to personal origins, which remain subject to the consent of the "birth mothers." In their article, lawyers Laurence Brunet and Michelle Giroux explain in detail the terms and conditions and how they work (see, for example, Ensellem, 2004; Lefaucheur, 2001 et 2006; Le Boursicot, 2008), while comparing these provisions to those in Quebec. Although anonymous childbirth does not exist in the Quebec system, a balance is sought between the rights of adoptees and of birth parents, in a context where the confidentiality of adoption records was only removed in 2017 by Bill 113, which permits access to the birth parents' personal data, provided that they give their consent.

10In France, as in Quebec, research in the social sciences has not yet shed much light on the impact of these legal changes on institutional practices or on the personal experience of connecting with one’s origins. Sébastien Roux studies the rhetoric of adoption professionals regarding "birth mothers" (2015) and how children's parentage is racially categorized (2017a). Basing her study on the records of abandoned children in the care of child welfare (Aide sociale à l'enfance), Agnès Martial (2020) describes unprecedented institutional practices of conservation, fabrication and promulgation of the vestiges of a pre-adoptive history, reflecting both the value attributed to the child's origins and the associated discontinuities in the narratives and relationships they can create.

  • 3 Article 30 of The Hague Convention adopted in 1993: "(1) The competent authorities of a Contracting (...)

11The surge in international adoption since the 1980s has also redefined the scope and contours of the concept of origins for adoptees. Formulated according to Euro-American legal conventions, international adoption establishes a genealogical link between the child and their adoptive parents following a complete severance of the birth relationships (Howell, 2006). However, the right to know one's origins was affirmed by The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.3 A child's right to information about their identity is fundamental to their well-being and inseparable from access to information about their birth parents, as well as about their cultural, religious, ethnic, and national origins (Yngvesson, 2010). At the same time, maintaining connections with one's origins has become a constitutive dimension of "good" adoptive parenting, where parents collect and preserve information for the child, familiarize the child with their "culture" of origin and organize return trips to their country of birth (Howell, 2006).

  • 4 The Hague Convention stipulates that it is preferable, in the best interests of the child, that chi (...)

12What makes the issue of origins in international adoption unique is the role played by states in a geopolitical context where the movement of children is subject to the uncertainties of internal crises and armed conflict, as well as diplomatic balance (Marre et Briggs, 2009; Denéchère, 2011). This stability has been affected by the decline in the number of international adoptions linked to various "structural, demographic and economic" developments in the donor countries (Mignot, 2015b : 3), as well as to the principle of preferential retention of the child in their country of birth instituted by The Hague Convention.4 In this new situation, countries of origin are making increasing demands on the profiles of international adoption candidates and persist in maintaining various forms of contact with the children they put up for adoption, either through regular reports to ensure access to future adoptions, or by the child’s access to citizenship of their country of birth (Ouellette et Saint Pierre, 2011). Some countries, South Korea being the most emblematic example, have developed a policy of welcoming and symbolically reintegrating their adoptees, who are considered representatives of their nation of origin in a global context (Prébin, 2006). Because adoption transcends the "blood" borders of both parentage and nation, transnational adoption results in diverse forms of belonging. This in turn gives rise to various types of movement ­– of information, people, goods and services –­ to and from the countries of origin, and of acceptance in a globalized context (Kim, 2007).

13The article by Simonella Tanguy sheds light on Benin's inclusion in the current list of "countries of origin" and its recent ratification of The Hague Convention. Adoption, which became legal in Benin in 2004, is associated in different ways with local practices involving the movement of children within the family. Binationals residing outside of Benin can adopt the child of a spouse, nephew or niece, in a spirit of community solidarity that does not break the child's bonds with their birth parents. However, the ratification of The Hague Convention introduced a new definition of an adoptable child, one "abandoned or orphaned." This is not in line with Beninese concepts, which are rooted in traditional fostering practices in which the child never really leaves their family of origin. This adoption model also raises the question of state collection and retention of information regarding the conditions of children's births (Roux, 2017b). Ultimately, the article questions the status of "country of origin," in a context where the international movement of children often links donor countries to former colonial powers. Adoption is sometimes denounced as representing a new imperialism, especially when there is concern that children will grow up in same-sex families. The rejection of these potential adoptive families, judged not to conform with Beninese social norms and cultural values, reinforces the idea that children belong to their country of birth.

Assisted reproduction: the evolution of laws concerning personal origins

  • 5 For example, the PMAnonyme in France.

14A similar evolution is taking place with assisted reproduction: the egg/sperm donor anonymity principle is gradually being replaced by systems that allow groups of donor-conceived individuals to find out in adulthood the identity of the people who contributed to their conception or birth. This evolution is due to the demands of donor-conceived5 individuals, the emergence of a new ethical imperative of "transparency" in relation to genetic data on children's history (Nordvisqt, 2014), and to a gradual rejection of the "Neither Seen Nor Known" model that associates anonymity with family secrecy about using donors (Théry, 2010). This model is also inappropriate for same-sex families, where donation is a given and thus inevitably the subject of different narratives (Côté et Lavoie, 2020).

15A number of countries have amended their laws to end or limit anonymity. These include Sweden (1984), Switzerland (1998), Austria (1992), Iceland (in two stages since 1996), the State of Victoria in Australia (1995), Norway (2003), the Netherlands (in two stages in 2002, then abolishing anonymity in 2004), New Zealand (2004), the United Kingdom (2005), Finland (in two stages, then abolishing anonymity in 2006), and Belgium (in two stages since 2007) (Théry et Leroyer, 2014). Spain and Italy currently maintain donor anonymity, while in France, the Bioethics Bill adopted on July 31, 2020, by the National Assembly aims to extend access to medically assisted reproduction (MAR) to female couples and single women and to abolish egg/sperm donor anonymity. The ongoing legislative process should allow donor-conceived people to have access to non-identifying data or to the donor’s identity when they reach the age of majority and if they so desire. At this point in time, all new donors are required to consent to the disclosure of this data prior to the donation. Persons born before the passage of the bill will also be able to apply: based on an adoption model similar to that of France’s National Council for Access to Personal Origins (CNAOP), the contacted donor will be free to disclose or retain non-identifying data or to reveal their identity.

16In Canada, there are several options for couples or single individuals who wish to use egg/sperm donors to realize their plan for parenthood. It is possible to use an anonymous or open-identity donor, i.e. a person who accepts that their identifying information may be disclosed. It is also possible to obtain assistance from a donor from the social circle of the couple or of the recipient. Although these various arrangements coexist in the Canada-wide context, they are not subject to national regulation. A challenge to the 2004 federal law made provinces responsible for legislating the issue, something none of them has done to date (Gruben et Cameron, 2017; Kelly, 2017). The available options are therefore left at the discretion of those who use egg/sperm donors for their parental plan (Czarnowski, 2020; Gruben et Cameron, 2017). In Quebec, the Advisory Committee on Family Law (2015) nevertheless recommended abolishing the anonymity of egg/sperm donors, considering the right to know one's origins to be in the best interests of the child.

17Several laws around the world have addressed the issue of regulating gestational surrogacy by formulating responses that range from formal prohibition to regulatory oversight, through the recognition of a contractual agreement, or even being laissez-faire (Pennings et al., 2016). Different forms of regulation can coexist in the same country. Some countries such as France, Germany and Spain prohibit all types of gestational surrogacy (Brunet et al., 2013). Yet, as the anthropologist Jérôme Courduriès (2018) illustrates in the case of France, prohibiting surrogacy is not without consequences for parents and their children, since filiation with the non-biological parent cannot be established when issuing international birth certificates.

18In Canada, surrogacy is at the crossroads of federal and provincial jurisdictions, resulting in a "kaleidoscope of legal phenomena" (Saris, 2016). As in France, a woman who gives birth in Quebec is recognized as the mother of the child. The birth certificate is thus combined with the declaration of birth, which must be sent to the Registrar of Civil Status no later than 30 days after the birth of the child in order to enter it into the register. This registration is necessary to establish the child's identity and filiation. Although gestational surrogacy is considered an assisted reproduction practice, it is nevertheless the rules of filiation “by blood” that apply to the birth (and not those provided for by the system of filiation by assisted reproduction), regardless of whether or not the woman who gives birth to the child is the genitor (Malacket, 2015).

  • 6 Under the All Families Are Equal Act (Government of Ontario, 2016) and the Family Law Act (Governme (...)
  • 7 Article 555 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

19In practice, when a child is born from gestational surrogacy in Quebec, the child's initial parents are the surrogate woman and the man who conceived the child. Unlike the current state of family law in Ontario and British Columbia,6 the members of the couple by intention cannot both be recognized as the legal parents at birth. Moreover, they will have no legal recourse if the surrogate changes her mind and decides to keep her maternal filiation. Similarly, the surrogate will not be able to force a non-genetically related intended parent to adopt and care for the child if the agreement is dissolved during the pregnancy or when the baby is born. To regularize the situation, i.e. to establish the filiation of the child with the other parent by intention (mother or father), the recourse is adoption by special consent.7 The woman who gave birth must first relinquish her parental rights and responsibilities as a legal mother and consent to the adoption of the child. She has 30 days to withdraw her consent. An application for a placement order can then be filed, allowing the non-statutory parent to take an adoption leave. When the conditions are met and no request for the return of the child has been made, the court issues a placement order valid until the end of the adoption process, which can last from three to six months. This order grants the father's spouse parental authority over the child. After this period, an adoption judgment can be rendered. The court must then make a decision on the basis of the existing laws on filiation and the jurisprudence on the matter.

Digital technologies and the search for origins

  • 8 See, for example, Facebook pages Génération X or Nés sous X, and the forums Nés sous X et familles (...)

20Thanks to the increasing use of digital social networks, the search for origins now extends well beyond institutional mechanisms that authorize or deny access to information. Social networks build relationships and create groups that share a common origin, and they encourage the emergence of a common experience of adoption or donor conception. In France, as elsewhere, an examination of such forums and of the webpages of people "born under X," adopted,8 or donor-conceived reveals the importance of these digital exchanges (Black et al., 2016). While they allow people to share their experiences and feelings by identifying with a group to which they belong, they are also considered a useful alternative to institutional research mechanisms, which are often found to be ineffective by people seeking information about the terms of their conception or birth.

21In her article, Johanne Thompson Sweeny deals specifically with how social networks are changing the methods of research in international adoption. The use of information and communication technologies facilitates and accelerates such searches, by making public information that is sometimes considered confidential by institutions and by authorizing virtual relationships despite geographical distance. On the other hand, it short-circuits the possibility of the protagonists' consent and tends to make it impossible to control rapid, multiple and sometimes invasive interactions. In addition to these exchanges of information and virtual contacts, the development of a globalized industry of genetic and genealogical services now offers Internet access to so-called direct-to-consumer (DTC) DNA tests and to genealogy sites. These often become a key tool in the search for origins, whether it is an attempt to identify birth parents in the region of the world where the adoptees were born or, in the case of assisted reproduction, to find an egg/sperm donor and people conceived from the same donor (Abel et Pálsson, 2020 ; Martin, ce numéro).

Relationships rooted in nature?

22The focus on origins in the study of contemporary family arrangements makes it possible to analyze what reproduction means today, when people may contribute to the conception of a child without becoming its parents in the legal sense, thus remaining in the margins of kinship. Do relationships associated with origins stemming from a procreative event or act reflect a naturalized perception of kinship and identities?

23In view of the continuous advances in knowledge and reproductive technology, access to information about origins can be interpreted as a quest for "truth" that seems to ascribe to the flesh an unprecedented power in defining the questions (Memmi, 2014). Although biogenetic knowledge is now considered by our societies to be "constitutive" of identity and kinship (Strathern, 1999), in Western societies blood and flesh are actually very old metaphors for kinship (Martial et Fine 2010; Courduriès et Gourarier, 2020), whose representations have gradually shifted "from consubstantiality to genes" (Delaisi de Parseval et Collard, 2007 : 41). In this dynamic and changing relationship with the facts of reproduction, the terms evoking nature, blood ties, genes and their distribution have become one of the "contemporary ways of expressing kinship, connecting or conversely separating certain categories of parents" (Edwards, 2009 : 322).

24The body is highlighted in discussions concerning resemblances, a topic analysed in several articles in this issue. As Johanne Sweeny reminds us in her paper, physical resemblances are at the root of many questions about origins in adoptive situations. The genetic resemblances resulting from the donor were also mentioned by the mothers in lesbian families that Alice Sophie Sarcinelli and Charlotte Simon met, as well as by women who received an egg donation in the study by Raphaële Noël, Marie-Alexia Allard and Gabrielle Pelletier. Anaïs Martin shows the importance and meaning of resemblance in the way donor-conceived people talk about their donor (2019). She also reminds us that the links between people from the same donor, highlighted by genetic connections, "appear at first sight in their physical dimension." However, as we shall see, this dimension is not enough to account for the meanings ascribed to these connections, because relationships associated with the "truth" of conception are the subject of a variety of interpretations, negotiations and elective strategies (Abel et Pálsson, 2020).

25The concept of origins also raises questions about gender asymmetries in the reproductive process. The search for a father or genitor, attempts to establish connections with "birth parents" and the desire to know the identity of a donor are directed at both women and men. The concept of "origin" therefore covers a variety of interpretations, referring to genetics on the one hand, and to pregnancy and birth, on the other, through the notion of "birth mother" in adoption, or the variations created by surrogacy. These methods of conception are evoked and interpreted variously.

26In France, the few studies dealing with birth parents are primarily quantitative and focus on women who have given birth secretively (Lefaucheur, 2001; Villeneuve-Gokalp, 2011). Sweeny's article points out, following other studies (Carsten, 2007), the centrality of the character of the "birth mother," who arouses ambivalent feelings, while the figure of the genitor, generally not found in the records of children "born of X" (Martial, 2020), sometimes appears in legal documents. Lawyers Brunet and Giroux emphasize in their article the way in which French law sets up an opposition between the rights of the biological mother and father. The latter, informed of the pregnancy and the birth, may become interested in the child and request that the child be entrusted to him, thus thwarting the right of the birth mother to have her baby in secret. However, they specify that "the regulations in force, their implementation by the CNAOP and their interpretation by the courts converge toward a restrictive application of the birth father's rights to obtain custody of the child" before it has been put up for adoption.

27The complex facets of assisted reproduction are likely to lead to multiple connections between the child and the men and women who took part in the conception (Courduriès, 2016). We know that donating an egg or sperm is a medical process that is not equally difficult, and can be part of different steps, linked to different conceptions of male and female roles in reproduction (Almeling, 2011; Molas et Bestard, 2017). However, we do not know the effects of this on the concept of parentage, especially since most of the work in MAR currently focuses primarily on sperm donations.

28In surrogacy and egg donation, the child’s origins are redefined and pluralized during pregnancy and birth: Are they located in the genes of the donor (or the intended mother), or in the womb of the woman who carried it? "While it has become commonplace for several people to come together to make a child," write Geneviève Delaisi de Parseval and Chantal Collard (2007, p. 30), the fact remains that little is known about the particular numbers of Euro-American surrogacy; these are still being developed and "tinkered with." Belgian psychologist Françoise Cailleau (2013, p. 28) believes that assisted reproduction practices invite us to "rethink parenthood in its various dimensions, as well as the matter of the multiplicities of the feminine and the maternal." As the process of surrogacy or egg donation unfolds, the contacts maintained among the persons concerned quietly build a singular relational framework that, at the outset, binds the adults together by integrating the symbolic presence of the child to come. This linking of trajectories, while unique to each group of individuals, occurs nonetheless through social mores that shape the narrative of the genesis of the family.

To talk or not to talk about one's origins: the stakes of the narrative

29In various adoption studies, the narrative is at the heart of personal origins as it can place the people, acts and relationships connected with the birth within a coherent and continuous temporality, otherwise marked by silence, secrets or separations. As Jane Carsten (2000: 692) suggests, the search by adoptees reveals and counters "the very considerable dislocations of 'kinship time.'" In fact, the origins narrative appears constitutive of personal identity for adults in search of the conditions of their birth (Théry, 2010; Martial, 2020), while contemporary educational norms urge adoptive or intended parents to tell their children the story of their coming into the world. Such adoption narratives have become a common family practice, especially in an international context.

30Sociologist Petra Nordqvist (2021) writes that the insistence on "transparency" that now characterizes assisted reproduction practices creates challenges for parents and presents them with contradictory moral standards – How and when to tell the child and the extended family? Who owns the "truth" about the child's history and identity? ­­– since donor conception must take into account the extremely relational nature of family life. Telling or concealing the circumstances of their birth from the child also depends on familial arrangements and engenders a wide variety of practices. Heterosexual families, for example, are more likely to maintain secrecy or delay telling the child than lesbian families (Readings et al., 2011). This observation reveals different relational issues for these two types of families: for heterosexual couples, concretizing the desire for a child through sperm donation is the result a painful journey through infertility, while for female couples it represents the preferred way to start a family (Hayman et Wilkes, 2017). Although disclosure is a matter of course for lesbian couples, mothers still need to think about where they want to place the donor in the family’s imagination (Côté, 2014; Goldberg et Allen, 2013).

31Using a survey of three generations of lesbian parent families in Italy and Belgium, Alice Sophie Sarcinelli and Charlotte Simon examine different forms of parentage narratives in a variety of media (books, cartoons, etc.). The status of the donor ranges from simply being a provider of reproductive material to a person located in the child's relational environment. These narratives are often inspired by the community in which the parents evolve and tend to build "a common narrative, even a shared cultural method of talking about origins within the lesbian community." A trip with the child to the country where the MAR took place also echoes the "return trips" organized by adoptive families, with genetic origins becoming a national heritage. Sarcinelli and Simon's investigation also reveals the hesitations, silences and ambiguities of parental discussions on origins, whether or not the donor is known. Indeed, while anonymity transfers a "non-person" status on the donor and establishes an incomplete relationship (Thompson, 2005; Nordqvist, 2017; Konrad, 2005), knowledge about sperm and egg donation creates connections between the child, the donor and their respective relatives that go beyond ordinary definitions of what constitutes a family. A donor may thus be defined as being one of the "relatives" (Côté et Lavoie, 2016), while sexual or matrimonial prohibitions in degrees may be spontaneously associated with the relationships created by the donation (Martin, 2017).

32Limiting access to donor information is thus a means of protecting against "excessive kinship" (Konrad, 2005). Sarcinelli and Simon note a common tendency in lesbian families to minimize the role of the donor in order to protect that of the mother of intention within the parental couple. This is consistent with the principle of exclusive filiation, which Côté (2014) and Gross (2014) also demonstrate in other national contexts. In their analysis of the discussions and genograms generated by directed egg donation, Raphaële Noël, Marie-Alexia Allard and Gabrielle Pelletier highlight the importance of the "donor’s narrative," recognizing the psychological work carried out by the female donor to give meaning to her gesture and to create a connection with the child. With this narrative, the donors also contribute to crafting the recipient couple’s narrative, which includes the donor, while co-constructing the intended motherhood.

33Kévin Lavoie (2019) also documents the origins narrative in his study of assisted reproduction by egg donation or surrogacy, which reflects the sequence of childbirth in which each protagonist finds their role in crafting the genesis of the family. This narrative construct is based on three forms of assisted motherhood: exclusive, sequential, or honorary. These representations influence the way in which the child is informed about the circumstances of their conception, as well as the kinds of ties established among all of the people involved, including life partners, children and grandparents: patent kinship ties, friendly relations between the two families, or ties that have been broken or that never existed. The nature of these ties varies according to the initial motivations and the outcome of negotiating the assisted reproduction agreement. Above all, it depends upon the affinities among the persons concerned and the relational closeness maintained or lost during the pregnancy.

Putting practices to the test: from narratives to relationships

34What happens when the connection with the origins, known since the child's birth or discovered later, results in relationships?

Going home, "reunions" and multi-parenting in adoptive situations

35The adoption terminology associated with origins reveals the power of conventional reproductive norms in determining relationship links. When adoptees are successful in their quests, they meet a "mother," "father," "brothers and sisters" or a "birth family," but these commonly used and accepted terms cover a wide range of situations. Janet Carsten (2007) describes the feeling of arbitrariness that characterizes stories of family meetings with very uncertain, and in some cases disturbing, outcomes. Anything can emerge from these encounters: new relationships, a disappointing confrontation, the simple identification of an unknown origin, or even grief following the discovery of the death of a parent they never met (Sagnes, 2000; Carsten, 2007). Internationally, parents sometimes meet with the child’s biological mother or birth family during the adoption process, but relations rarely continue beyond this point (Ouellette et Mossière, 2004). In research on adult adoptees, studies agree on the diversity of reunion scenarios, which often do not go beyond a single meeting or trip. International adoptees do, however, sometimes establish long-lasting and stable relationships with their birth families, during which bonds of affection and solidarity are forged (Ouellette, 2008; Yngvesson, 2010). While the law focuses on identifying ascendants, siblings by birth are very much invested in the search for origins. However, the bonds most often continue between only one or two members of a group of siblings, reflecting the highly selective nature of these relationships (Carsten, 2000; Sagnes, 2000). Connecting with origins ultimately leads to constructing relationships that are completely independent of a kinship linked to birth. For example, Eleana Kim (2007) describes the case of South Korean adoptees who return to their country of birth and find it impossible to identify their birth parents. They then create new relationships based on a shared experience of displacement and on complex negotiations between the feelings of being both "foreign" and "familiar" in Korea.

36Although the proliferation of "relatives" around adoptees can evoke certain fears and tensions, when the search for origins results in long-standing relationships, it does not seem to threaten the position and status of the adoptive family, who may themselves be involved in the search and reunion processes in different ways (Prébin, 2006; Carsten, 2007; Ouellette, 2008; Ouellette et Saint-Pierre, 2008; 2011; Yngvesson, 2010). However, these searches occur only once the adoptees have reached adulthood, with the adoptive family having previously been the only space for education and bonding. Other experiences show more complex forms of coexistence among different relatives during childhood. For example, open adoption, studied in the United States in the late 1990s organizes ongoing post-adoption contacts between the child, the adoptive family and the birth parent(s) (Hollinger, 2000).

37The article by Doris Châteauneuf, Geneviève Pagé and Béatrice Decaluwe explains the issues and challenges facing the "Mixed-Bank" system in Quebec today. This "concurrent planning" program, for which there are equivalents in Great Britain and the United States, places very young children at high risk of neglect into adoptive foster families. The authors show how such arrangements can lead to competing concepts of parenthood, in a context where it is always experienced as incomplete: the "parenting without rights" of foster parents mirrors the "parenting without children" of birth parents. The role played by those involved in following up on the child’s origins – discussing the birth parents, encouraging or limiting contact, etc. – can have a significant impact on relations between families. Some foster parents come to terms with multi-parenting by choosing to secure their situation (via the child's placement at the age of majority or the transfer of parental attributes) over their initial adoption goal, and by giving a positive value to the presence of birth parents in the child’s life to define their identity. Laurence Brunet and Michelle Giroux, in response to Françoise Romaine Ouellette and Carmen Lavallée (2020), express regret that, in situations in Quebec where children in care are adopted late, Quebec's adoption reform did not recognize a form of additive adoption that could be an alternative to full adoption, following the model of simple adoption in France.

Relationships created by origin in family configurations resulting from assisted reproduction

38Situations where the recourse is to a known sperm donor and the terminology used by the families reveals the variability of the man’s status, yet over time he eventually becomes an actor in the course of the child’s history (Côté, et al, 2015; Côté, et al., 2019). Sarcinelli and Simon show that in the case of donation through a known donor, negotiations leading up to the donation often remain incomplete. The terms of the relationship created by the donation then need to be re-defined over time, as the relationship repertoire of the kinship is constructed.

39In their contribution, psychologists Noël, Allard and Pelletier analyze the narratives that describe the development of an affective and relational history between egg donors and recipient couples, stories that result in efforts to define and name relationships. The donation transforms or recreates these connections, either by strengthening an existing genetic relationship or by deepening an already established friendship, which becomes the "donation branch" in the genograms made by the recipient couples. The authors observe in this a co-construction of maternal identity that involves both spouses and donors, and that specifically includes recognition of the donation.

40When a third-party donor is identified at a later date, the social behaviour associated with parentage may take on forms that are quite different from ordinary kinship relationships. Research in assisted reproduction has revealed the importance of groups of people born from the same donation (Hertz et Nelson, 2019; Nordqvist et Smart, 2014), and in this issue Anaïs Martin offers an analysis based on a survey conducted in the United Kingdom. To better understand how these relationships are defined, she describes how individuals from the same donation distinguish their relationships from those with their siblings (raised with them by the same parents) or with the donor's children (with whom they share a genetic link). The unique experience of assisted reproduction leads much more to the creation of relationships than do genetic connections. The order in which people join these numerous and extendable groups, subject to the timing of the assisted reproduction as well as to that of the search processes, replaces the criterion of birth order. In addition to virtual exchanges (messaging or social networks) and group meetings, interpersonal links based on affinity emerge, which can, however, be interrupted at any time.

Conclusion. Origins, kinship and multi-parenting: shifting boundaries

41"Each society and each period establishes the combinations that frame the representations of who is a parent, determining the foundation around which the community, supported or not by the law, defines the rights and duties of the authors of the childbirth, then of the partners responsible for the daily life and growth of the new generations," concludes Dominique Mehl (2008, p. 295) in her book Enfants du don. Far from reducing kinship and identities to merely evidence of a biogenetic fact, the connection to origins, constructed through polyphonic narratives, produces an unprecedented diversity of relational experiences in contemporary family configurations. At the edges of kinship, the notion of relatedness proposed by Carsten (2000) seems particularly adapted to an analysis of these procedural, unpredictable relationships, which are subject to the effects of time and experience.

42Echoing Carsten, Allebrandt (2013) speaks of a "fluid kinship" consisting of both connections and relationships that go beyond the genealogical model, permitting discussion of the links created by adoption and surrogacy. While connections are composed of aspects or characteristics that may demonstrate similarity (such as physical resemblance or shared genetic links), relationships illustrate the processes and interactions linking two elements or two people together. For the anthropologist, the "quest for origins underlines the importance of taming different forms of connection and opens a breach to transform these connections into relationships" (Allebrandt, 2013, p. 245). These relationships, and the resulting multi-parent arrangements, also reveal the shifting nature of the boundaries that distinguish different categories of "parents" around the child adopted or conceived through donation (Freeman et al., 2014). The articles that make up this issue, each in its own way and citing different contexts, invite us to pursue these reflections on the frontiers of multi-parenting situations created by connecting to origins.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abel, S. et G. Pálsson. 2020. « Dépister l’ancestralité : machines et techniques généalogiques dans la reconstruction des histoires de famille », Ethnologie française, vol. 50, no 2, p. 269-284.

Almeling, R. 2011. Sex Cells: The Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm, University of California Press.

Allebrandt, D. 2013. Parenté fluide : la quête des origines au Brésil et au Québec. Dialogue entre parenté, droit et science, Thèse de doctorat inédite, Université de Montréal.

Black, K. A., A.M. Moyer et A.E. Goldberg. 2016. « From Face-to-Face to Facebook: The Role of Technology and Social Media in Adoptive Family Relationships with Birth Family Members », Adoption Quarterly, vol. 19, no 4, p. 307-332.

Brunet, L., J. Carruthers, K. Davaki, D. King, C. Marzo et J. McCandless. 2013. A Comparative Study of the Regime of Surogacy in EU Members States, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, European Parliament, Bruxelles.

Cailleau, F. 2013. « Penser la gestation pour autrui à l’aide d’un nouveau modèle théorique », Thérapie familiale, vol. 34, no 1, p. 149-164.

Carsten, J. 2000. « Knowing Where You've Come from: Ruptures and Continuities of Time and Kinship in Narratives of Adoption Reunions », Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, no 6, p. 637-53.

Carsten, J. 2007. « Connections and Disconnections of Memory and Kinship in Narratives of Adoption Reunions in Scotland », dans Ghosts of Memory: Essays on Remembrance and Relatedness, sous la dir. de J. Carsten, Oxford, Blakwell Publishing, p. 83-103.

Delaisi de Parseval, G. et C. Collard. 2007. « La gestation pour autrui. Un bricolage des représentations de la parenté et de la maternité euro-américaines », L’Homme, no 183, p. 29-54.

Comité consultatif sur le droit de la famille. 2015. Pour un droit de la famille adapté aux nouvelles réalités conjugales et familiales, Québec, ministère de la Justice.

Côté, I. 2014. « Du père au géniteur en passant par le tiers intéressé : représentations du rôle joué par le donneur de sperme connu dans les familles lesboparentales québécoises », Enfances Familles Générations, no 21, p. 70-95.

Côté, I., K. Lavoie et F. de Montigny. 2015. « « J’ai aidé deux femmes à fonder leur famille ». Le don de gamètes entre particuliers en contexte québécois » Enfances, Familles, Générations, no 23, p. 127-147.

Côté, I. et K. Lavoie. 2016. « De la procréation ‘assistée par’ autrui à la procréation ‘négociée avec’ autrui : dialogue autour de la place du tiers donneur dans le projet parental de mères lesbiennes au Québec », Revue Quetelet, vol. 4, no 1, p. 101-121.

Côté, I. et K. Lavoie. 2020. « L’histoire de la cigogne revisitée : l’annonce de l’identité du donneur chez les enfants de familles lesboparentales au Québec », Revue canadienne de service social, vol. 37, no 2, p. 9-27.

Côté, I., R.-P. Trottier-Cyr, K. Lavoie, G. Pagé et D. Dubeau (2019). Récits d’enfants sur leur constellation familiale : les liens relationnels au sein des familles lesboparentales avec donneur connu au Québec. Devenir, vol. 31, no 2, p. 125-143.

Courduriès, J. 2016. « Ce que fabrique la gestation pour autrui. Les relations entre la femme porteuse, l’enfant et ses parents », Journal des Anthropologues, no 144-145, p. 53-76.

Courduriès, J. 2018. « At the nation’s doorstep: the fate of children in France born via surrogacy », Reproduction Biomedicine & Society Online, vol. 7, p. 47-54.

Courduriès, J. et M. Gourarier. 2020. « Introduction. Tracer l’histoire des sujets », Ethnologie française, vol. 50, no 2, p. 257-268.

Czarnowski, A. 2020. Retrospective Removal of Gamete Donor Anonimity: Policy Recommendations for Ontario Based on Victorian Experience. Canadian Journal of Family Law, vol. 33, no 2, 251-300.

Denéchère, Y. 2011. Des enfants venus de loin. Histoire de l’adoption internationale en France, Paris, Armand Colin.

Edwards, J. 2009. « La vie sociale du sang et des gènes », dans Porqueres i Gené Enric (dir.), Défis contemporains de la parenté, Paris, Éditions de l’EHESS, p. 303-326.

Ensellem, C. 2004. Naître sans mère. Accouchement sous X et filiation, Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Fine, A. 1998. Adoptions. Ethnologie des parentés choisies, Paris, Éditions de la M.S.H.

Fine, A. 2000. « Introduction », dans A. Fine et C. Neyrinck (dir.), Parents de sang, parents adoptifs, Paris, Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, collection Droit et société, p. 5-19.

Fine, A. 2001. « Pluriparentalités et système de filiation dans les sociétés occidentales », dans La pluriparentalité, sous la dir. de Y. Bettahar et D. Le Gall, Paris, Presses universiraires de France, p. 69-92.

Fonseca, C. 2011. « The De-Kinning of Birthmothers: Reflections on Maternity and Being Human », Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology, vol. 8, no 2, p. 307-339.

Freeman, T., S. Graham, F. Ebtehaj et R. Martin (eds). 2014. Relatedness in assisted reproduction. Families, Origins and Identities, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Goldberg, A. et K. Allen, K. 2013. « Donor, dad or…? Young adults with lesbian parents’experiences with known donors ». Family Process, vol. 52, no 2, p. 338-350.

Gouvernement de l’Ontario. 2016. All Families Are Equal Act. Parentage and Related Registrations Statute Law Amendment, Toronto, Assemblée législative.

Gouvernement de la Colombie-Britannique. 2011. Family Law Act. Victoria, Assemblée législative.

Gross, M. 2014. « Les tiers de procréation dans les familles homoparentales », Recherches familiales, vol. 11, no 1, p. 19-30.

Gruben V. et A. Cameron, 2017. Donor Anonymity in Canada: Assessing the Obstacles to Openness and Considering a Way Forward, Alberta Law Review, vol. 54, no 3, 665-680.

Hayman, B. et L. Wilkes. 2017. « De novo Families: Lesbian Motherhood », Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 64, no 5, p. 577-591.

Hertz, R. wr M. K. Nelson. 2019. Random Families: Genetic Strangers, Sperm Donor Siblings, and the Creation of New Kin. New York, Oxford University Press.

Howell, S. 2006. The Kinning of Foreigners. Transnational adoption in a global perspective, New York, Oxford, Bergham Books.

Hollinger, J. 2000. « L’adoption ouverte aux États-Unis », Parents de sang, parents adoptifs, sous la dir. de A. Fine et C. Neyrinck, Paris, Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, coll. Droit et société, p. 45-62.

Kelly, F. 2017. Is It Time To Tell? Abolishing Donor Anonymity in Canada, Canadian Journal of Family Law Canadian Journal of Family Law, vol. 30, no 2, p.173-226.

Kim, E. 2007. « Our Adoptee, Our Alien: Transnational Adoptees as Specters of Foreignness and Family in South Korea », Anthropological Quarterly, vol. 80, no 2, p. 497-531.

Konrad, M. 2005. Nameless Relations. Anonymity, Melanesia and reproductive gift exchange between British ova donors and recipients, Oxford, Berghan books.

Lavoie, K. 2019. Médiation procréative et maternités assistées : vers une approche relationnelle et pragmatique de la gestation pour autrui et du don d’ovules au Canada, Thèse de doctorat, Université de Montréal.

Le Boursicot, M.-C. 2008. « Accéder à ses origines personnelles. Le rôle du Conseil national pour l'accès aux origines personnelles », Informations sociales, no 146, p. 78-83.

Lefaucheur, N. 2001. « Accouchement sous X et mères de l’ombre », dans La pluriparentalité, sous la dir. de Le Gall D. et Y. Bettahar, Paris, Presses universitaires de France, p. 139-175.

Lefaucheur, N. 2006. « De la tradition française au droit à la vérité de la biographie – ou du recours à l’histoire dans les débats parlementaires sur l’accouchement dit sous X », Clio. Histoire‚ femmes et sociétés, vol. 24, no 24, p. 273-290.

Malacket, A. 2015. « Maternité de substitution : quelle filiation pour l’enfant à naître? », Revue du notariat, vol. 117, no 2, p. 229-243.

Marre, D. et L. Briggs (dir.). 2009. International Adoption: Global Inequalities and the Circulation of Children, New York, New York University Press.

Martial, A. 2003. S'apparenter. Ethnologie des liens de familles recomposées, Paris, Éditions de la MSH.

Martial, A. 2019. « Multi-Parenthood and Contemporary Family Forms in French Studies », Antropologia, vol. 6, no 2, p. 13-26.

Martial, A. 2020. « Les archives des origines. Traces et (dis)continuités narratives dans les dossiers de l’Aide sociale à l’enfance (1995-2015) », Ethnologie française, vol. 178, no 2, p. 285-298.

Martial, A. et A. Fine. 2010. « Vers une naturalisation de la filiation ? », Genèse, vol. 1, no. 78, p. 121-134.

Martin, A. 2017. Aux confins de la parenté : le don d'engendrement vu par les personnes qui en sont issues, Dossier d'Études, no 190, CNAF, France.

Martin, A. 2019. « ‘Who do I Look Like?’: Kinning and Resemblance in the Experience of French Donor Conceived Adults », Antropologia, vol. 6, no 2, p. 45-62.

Mehl, D. 2008. Enfants du don. Procréation médicalement assistée : parents et enfants témoignent, Paris, Éditions Robert Laffont.

Memmi, D. 2014. La revanche de la chair. Essai sur les nouveaux supports de l’identité, Paris, Le Seuil.

Mignot, J.-F. 2015a. « Les adoptions en France et en Italie : une histoire comparée du droit et des pratiques (XIXe-XXIe siècles) », Population, vol. 70, no 4, p. 805-830.

Mignot, J.-F. 2015b. « L’adoption internationale dans le monde : les raisons du déclin », Population & Sociétés, vol. 519, no 2, p.1-1.

Modell, J. 1994. Kinship with Strangers: Adoption and Interpretations of Kinship in American Culture, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Molas, A. et J. Bestard. 2017. « En Espagne, le don d’ovules entre intérêt, solidarité et précarité », Ethnologie française, vol. 47, no 3, p. 491-498.

Nordvisqt, P. 2014. « The Drive for Openness in Donor Conception: Disclosure and The Trouble with Real Life », International Journal of Law, Policy and The Family, vol. 28, no 3, p. 21-338.

Nordqvist, P. 2017. « Genetic Thinking and Everyday Living: On Family Practices and Family Imaginaries », The Sociological Review, vol. 65, no 4, p. 865-881.

Nordqvist, P. 2021. « Telling Reproductive Stories: Social Scripts, Relationality and Donor Conception », Sociology, en ligne : https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038520981860

Nordqvist, P. et C. Smart. 2014. Relative Strangers: Family life, genes and donor conception, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Ouellette, F.-R. 2000. « L’adoption face aux définitions de la famille et de l’institution généalogique », Parents de sang, parents adoptifs. Approches juridiques et anthropologiques de l’adoption, sous la dir. de A. Fine et C. Neirinck, Paris, LGDJ, p. 325-342.

Ouellette, F.-R. 2008. « Le droit aux origines des enfants adoptés à l’étranger », dans Droits de l’enfant (Actes de la Conférence internationale, Ottawa 2007), sous la dir. de T. Collins, R. Grondin, V. Pinero, M. Pratte et M.-C. Roberge (dir.), Montréal, Wilson et Lafleur, p. 391-403.

Ouellette, F.-R et C. Lavallée. 2020. Comprendre la filiation et la parenté à travers le prisme de l’adoption, Presses de l’Université Laval, Québec.

Ouellette, F.-R. et G. Mossière. 2004. « La circulation des informations sur les origines des adoptés internationaux », dans Comprendre la famille, sous la dir. de G. Pronovost et C. Lacharité, Presses de l’Université de Québec, p. 153-17.

Ouellette, F.-R. et J. Saint-Pierre. 2008. « La quête des origines en adoption internationale. Être chez soi et étranger », Informations sociales, vol. 2, no 146, p. 84-91.

Ouellette, F.-R. et J. Saint-Pierre. 2011. « Parenté, citoyenneté et état civil des adoptés », Enfances, Familles Générations, no 14, p. 51-76.

Pennings, G., R. Klitzman et F. Zegers-Hochschild. 2016. « International regulation and cross-country comparisons », dans Regulating Reproductive Donation, sous la dir. De S. Golombok, R. Scott, J. B. Appleby, M. Richards et S. Wilkinson, Cambridge University Press, p. 39-59.

Prébin, E. 2006. Adoption internationale. Les revenants de Corée, thèse de doctorat en ethnologie et sociologie comparative, Paris, Université de Paris Nanterre.

Readings, J., L. Blake, P. Casey, V. Jadva et S. Golombok. 2011. « Secrecy, disclosure and everything in-between: decisions of parents of children conceived by donor insemination, egg donation and surrogacy », Reproductive BioMedicine Online, vol. 22, no 5, p. 485-495.

Roux, S. 2015. « L’utérus et la patrie. Adoption, origines et politique des identités », Mouvements, no 82, p. 66-75.

Roux, S. 2017a. « The Colour of Family Happiness. Adoption and the Racial Distribution of Children in Contemporary France », Social Anthropology, vol. 25, no 4, p. 504-529.

Roux, S. 2017b. « L’État des origines. Histoires adoptives, conflits biographiques et vérités passées », Genèses, vol. 108, no 3, p. 69-88.

Sagnes, S. 2000. « La revanche élective. Filiation adoptive et “origines” en France et aux États-Unis », dans Parents de sang, parents adoptifs. Approches juridiques et anthropologiques de l’adoption : France, Europe, USA, Canada, sous la dir. de A. Fine et C. Neirink, Paris, L.G.D.J, p. 169-183.

Saris. A. 2016. Les femmes porteuses au Canada : un kaléidoscope de phénomènes juridiques. Communication. Colloque international « La gestation pour autrui - restituer la France dans le monde : représentations, encadrements et pratiques ». Paris, France, 17-18 novembre 2016.

Schneider, D. 1968. American Kinship: A Cultural Account, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.

Strathern, M. 1999. « Refusing information », dans Property, Substance and Effect: Anthropological Essays on Persons and Things, sous la dir. de M. Strathern, London et New Brunswick N.J., Athlone Press.

Théry, I. 2010. Des humains comme les autres. Bioéthique, anonymat et genre du don, Paris, Éditions de l’EHESS.

Théry, I. et A.-M. Leroyer. 2014. Filiation, origines, parentalité. Le droit face aux nouvelles valeurs de responsabilité générationnelle, Paris, Odile Jacob.

Thompson, C. 2005. Making Parents: the Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT.

Villeneuve-Gokalp, C. 2011. « Les femmes qui accouchent sous le secret en France, 2007-2009 », Population, vol. 66, no 1, p. 135-169.

Weber, F. 2013. Penser la parenté aujourd’hui. La force du quotidien, Paris, Rue d’Ulm.

Yngvesson, B. 2010. Belonging in an Adopted World. Race, Identity and Transnational Adoption, University of Chicago Press.

Haut de page

Notes

1 In France, these demands were made by the "angry Xs" (Les X en colères), the "shadow mothers” (Les mères de l’ombre), and more broadly, by the Coordination des actions pour le droit à la connaissance des origines (CADCO), an organization demanding the right to know one’s origins.

2 For example, Articles 7 and 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant, ICERD), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1989, recognize the child's right to identity, including nationality, name and family relationships as recognized by law, as well as "to the maximum extent possible, the right to know and be cared for by one’s parents. "

3 Article 30 of The Hague Convention adopted in 1993: "(1) The competent authorities of a Contracting State shall ensure that information held by them concerning the child's origin, in particular information concerning the identity of his or her parents, as well as the medical history, is preserved. (2) They shall ensure that the child or his or her representative has access to such information, under appropriate guidance, in so far as is permitted by the law of that State."

4 The Hague Convention stipulates that it is preferable, in the best interests of the child, that children be adopted by relatives or, failing that, by nationals, with intercountry adoption as a last resort (Mignot, 2015b: 2) 

5 For example, the PMAnonyme in France.

6 Under the All Families Are Equal Act (Government of Ontario, 2016) and the Family Law Act (Government of British Columbia, 2011), the intended parents of a child born through gestational surrogacy in these two provinces can, under certain conditions, be registered on the birth certificate through a simple administrative process, without having to go through an adoption process or go to court.

7 Article 555 of the Civil Code of Quebec.

8 See, for example, Facebook pages Génération X or Nés sous X, and the forums Nés sous X et familles en recherche and Les enfants nés sous X.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Agnès Martial, Isabel Côté et Kévin Lavoie, « From adoption to assisted reproduction: frameworks, practices and issues surrounding the question of origins and its narratives »Enfances Familles Générations [En ligne], 37 | 2021, mis en ligne le 28 mai 2021, consulté le 10 août 2022. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/efg/11709

Haut de page

Auteurs

Agnès Martial

Co-director, Centre Norbert Elias, Director of Research, French National Centre for Scientific Research, agnes.martial@univ-amu.fr

Isabel Côté

Canada Research Chair on Gestational Surrogacy and Family Ties, Professor, Department of Social Work, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Isabel.cote@uqo.ca

Articles du même auteur

Kévin Lavoie

Professor, School of Social Work and Criminology, Université Laval, Kevin.Lavoie@tsc.ulaval.ca

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Haut de page
  • Logo INRS
  • Logo Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines
  • Logo Fonds de recherche Société et culture - Québec
  • DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search