Preventing origin-deprivation: blood-tied kinship and the best interests of the child

Abstract

The thesis asks whether the current legal and policy frameworks surrounding social kinship creation offer a useful means of preventing the harms of origin deprivation, identifies areas that might be in need of reform and evaluates a means by which such reforms might be achieved. It argues chiefly that origin deprivation may result in psycho-social harm: a wide range of research underpins this proposition by highlighting the harmful aspects and adverse consequences of being deemed genetically kinless. Under the ‘clean-break’ model of created kinship, triad children may also suffer discrimination at the level of domestic law and policies and via court proceedings on information release or kin contact. As ‘veto victims’ relinquished children may be permanently ‘infantilized’ by the hierarchy of rights that seem to exist within social kinship triads. Doctrinal analysis of the jurisprudence on genetic identity ‘rights’, from a variety of jurisdictions (closed and open–record, veto-bound and ‘blood-tie as paramount’ where social kinship bonds have been overturned) suggests judicial deference for family sanctity, which has blurred the definitions of child welfare paramountcy. Devices such as balancing exercises have frequently favoured parental interests such as privacy or new family autonomy. A revised statutory welfare checklist for decision-makers, aimed at focusing greater attention on the unique, lifelong vulnerabilities of relinquished or removed children. The aim of the checklist is to frame origin deprivation as an exceptional rather than normative event and thereby minimize the frequency with which it occurs.

Date of Award	Mar 2012
Original language	English
Supervisor	Ciaran White (Supervisor) & Brian Taylor (Supervisor)