8 Pages Posted: 31 Jul 2011
Date Written: January 30, 2011
Response to Courtney G. Joslin, Protecting Children(?): Marriage, Gender, and Assisted Reproductive Technology, 83 S. CAL. L. REV. 1177 (2010).
This short response argues that Joslin’s parentage rule assessing intent at conception cannot be utilized without a clearer definition of conception and that it should be expanded to assess intent at any point before birth.
Keywords: Family law
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Purvis, Dara E., Of Financial Rights of Assisted Reproductive Technology: Non-Marital Children and Back-Up Plans (January 30, 2011). Southern California Law Review Postscript, Vol. 83, January 2011. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1899107