The Current Normative Model of the Child’s Origin in the context of Biomedical Achievements

The author refers to the initial political and legal entities on which the family law institution of the child’s origin is based. Their actualization is important to reduce an unjustifiably high level of controversy between the doctrinal and legislative understanding of this institution, as well as to overcome theoretical inaccuracies that have accumulated in the doctrinal description of the problem of the child’s origin. The author’s approach to its scientific description is based solely on the family law grounds. The conclusions reflect scientific views of the author on the problem posed, and they are as follows. The legal meaning of the norms on the origin of the child clearly reflects the priorities of the blood-biological origin. Family law is not focused on classifying the origin into types. It can only provide for individual exceptions at the stage of recognizing a person as a parent. The opportunities of reproductive medicine alone are not capable of changing the legislative and doctrinal undrstanding of how the institution of the child’s origin should be organized. Historically, it has clearly defined boundaries by law — from the act of procreation to the act of parental recognition by law. These boundaries define the meaning of the norms regulating the origin of the child under family law. At the proper level, they establish what the child’s life depends on after his birth. Inconsistency of current family law discourses describing the procedures of technological conception with this maxim has given rise to unfounded conclusions that, depending on the circumstances of conception, the origin may be different. A theoretically organized and integral family law concept of the child’s origin is able to resist these misconceptions.

1. Antokolskaya MV. Family law. Moscow: Jurist Publ.; 1996. (In Russ.).

2. Bartko AN, Mikhailovskaya-Karlova EP. Principles and main problems of biomedical ethics. Moscow: MMSI Publ.; 1999. (In Russ.).

3. Belova DA. Consent to the use of artificial reproduction and its legal significance for establishing the origin of the child. Lex russica. 2020;73(8):21-31. (In Russ.).

4. Belyaletdinov RR. Risks of modern biotechnologies: socio-humanitarian analysis. Moscow: 4 Print Publ.; 2019. (In Russ.).

5. Burmistrova EV. Establishing the origin of children when using artificial methods of human reproduction. Family and Housing Law. 2013;2:4-6. (In Russ.).

6. Giddens E, Sutton F. Basic concepts in sociology. Tr. from Eng. by Rozhdestvenskaya E. National research. Higher School of Economics Univ. 3rd ed. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics; 2021. (In Russ.).

7. Tomsinov VA. Legislation of Emperor Peter III: 1761–1762. Legislation of Empress Catherine II: 1761–1782. XXXII. Moscow: Zertsalo Publ.; 2011. (In Russ.).

8. Kirichenko KA. The evolution of doctrinal approaches to the institution of kinship in domestic family law. Vestnik NSU. Series «Law». 2007;3(2):18-27. (In Russ.).

9. Kiselyov VA, Smirnova TV. «Slippery slope» and bioethics: from logic to anthropology. Tsennosti i smysly = Values and Meanings. 2021;4(74):15-27. (In Russ.).

10. Krasnova TV. Bioethical prerequisites of the recipient’s civil status in the oocyte donation program. Tomsk State University Journal. Law. 2022;45:177-192. (In Russ.).

11. Lebedeva OYu. Certain problems of deducing the progenity of children under the legislation of the Russian Federation and foreign countries. Lex russica. 2015;98(1):96-103. (In Russ.).

12. Lebedeva OYu. The legal category of «kinship» in modern family law. Family and Housing Law. 2013;3:21-24. (In Russ.).

13. Mikhailova IA. The legislation regulating establishment of the origin of children needs to be adjusted. Issues of Juvenile Justice. 2009;2:17-20. (In Russ.).

14. Noskova MS. The problem of the legalization of mitochondrial replacement therapy and the prodecure of determining the origin of children born of three parents. President Law Journal. 2020;2:37-43. (In Russ.).

15. Pantykina MI. About how to write a scientific text: Bruno Latour’s recommendations. Bulletin of Samara State Technical University. Ыeries «Philosophy». 2023;5(1):41-47. (In Russ.).

16. Serova OA. A new paradigm of legal and ethical responsibility in the context of the dominance of biotechnology. Methodological Problems of the Civil Law Researches. 2022;4:48-64. (In Russ.).

17. Sukhareva ER. Problems of legal regulation of the child’s origin in the context of the use of reproductive technologies: the realities of the time and Christian values. Nauchnye vedomosti Belgorodskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Scientific Bulletin of Belgorod State University. Series «Philosophy. Sociology and Law.» 2018;43(1):155-160. (In Russ.).

18. Tarasov NN. Truth in Legal research (some methodological problems). Academic Law Journal. 2000;1:4-15. (In Russ.).

19. Tarusina NN. Family values under the auspices of law: the new in tradition and tradition in the new. Lex russica. 2023;76(1):33-52. (In Russ.).

20. Chudinov EM. Scaffolding of scientific theory and the problem of rationality. In: The ideals and norms of scientific research. Minsk; 1981. (In Russ.).

21. Barret-Kriegel B. Sphère privée, citoyenneté, démocratie. In: Théry I, Biet C. (textes réunis et présentés par) La famille, la loi, l’État. De la Révolution au Code civil. Paris: Imprimerie nationale et Centre Georges Pompidou; 1989. (In Fr.). Available at: https://archive.org/details/lafamillelaloile0000cent/page/n7/mode/2up (Accessed 07.12.2023).

22. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press; 2009.

23. Engelhardt T. Bases de la bioéthique. New York: Oxford University Press; 1986. Available at: https://archive. org/details/foundationsofbio0000enge (Accessed 07.12.2023).

24. Franklin S. Embodied Progress: a cultural account of assisted conception. London: Routledgc, 1997. Available at: https://archive.org/details/embodiedprogress0000fran (Accessed 07.12.2023).

25. Grzybowski K. Soviet Legal Institutions: Doctrines and Social Functions.Soviet Legal Institutions: Doctrines and Social Functions. University of Michigan Press; 1962. Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=michigan_legal_studies (Accessed 07.12.2023).

26. Labrusse-Riou С. La maîtrise du vivant: matière à procès. Pouwoirs. Bioéthique. 1991;56:87-107. Available at: https://revue-pouvoirs.fr/la-maitrise-du-vivant-matiere-a / (Accessed: 07.12.2023).

27. Malinovskij R. The family among the Australian aborigines; a sociological study: Monograph. Londres: London University Press; 1913. Available at: https://archive.org/details/familyamongaust00mali (Accessed 07.12.2023).

28. Pedrot Р. Les seuils de la vie. Biomédecine et droit du Paris. Odile Jacob; 2010.

29. Strathern М. After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press, 1992. Available at: https://philpapers.org/rec/STRANE (Accessed: 07.12.2023).

30. Warnock MA. Question of Life: The Warnock Report on Human Fertilisation and Embryology. New York: Basil Blackwell; 1985. Available at: https://archive.org/details/questionoflifewa0000warn (Accessed 07.12.2023).