Have a personal or library account? Click to login
European Dilemmas of the Biological versus Social Father: The Case of Estonia Cover

European Dilemmas of the Biological versus Social Father: The Case of Estonia

Open Access
|Mar 2017

References

  1. 1. Abrams, Kerry, and R. Kent Piacenti. “Immigration’s Family Values.” Virginia Law Review 100(4) (2014): 629–649.
  2. 2. Atack, Megan. “Traditional and Functional Views of the Family in the Law.” North East Law Review 56 (2016): 56–61.
  3. 3. Baker, Katharine K. “Bionormativity and the Construction of Parenthood.” Psychology and Feminist Legal Theory. Emory University of Law (Dec. 1-2, 2006).
  4. 4. Boyd, Susan B. “Gendering Legal Parenthood: Bio-Genetic Ties, Intentionally and Responsibly.” Windsor Y.B. Access Just 25 (2007): 1–29.
  5. 5. Brandão, Ana Maria, Alessandra Faria, and Helena Machao. “The legal investigation of biological paternity in Portugal: Gendered roles and representations” (2012) // http://hdl.handle.net/1822/23489.
  6. 6. Britz, Gabriele. “Biological and Social Parenthood”: 170-174. In: Katharina Boele-Woelki, Nina Dethloff, and Werner Gephart, eds. Family Law and Culture in Europe. Developments, Challenges and Opportunities. Cambridge – Antwerp – Portland: Intersentia, 2014.
  7. 7. Browne-Barbour, Vanessa S. “‘Mama’s Baby, Papa’s Maybe’: Disestablishment of Paternity.” Akron L.Rev. 48 (2015): 263–314.
  8. 8. Bryan, Jennifer. “Parenting Rights in California: Marriage v. Biology.” U. S. F. L. Rew 47 (2012-2013): 571–592.
  9. 9. Carbone, June, and Naomi Cahn. “Marriage, Parentage, and Child Support.” Family Law Quaterly 45(2) (2011): 219–240.
  10. 10. Claire Fenton-Glynn. “Consenting Adults: Giving and Receiving Consent to Adoption”: 51–80. In: Claire Fenton-Glynn, ed. Children’s Rights in Intercountry Adoption. A European Perspective. Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland: Intersentia, 2014.
  11. 11. Coester-Waltjen, Dagmar. “The Impact of the ECHR and ECtHR on European family law”: 49–94. In: Jens M. Scherpe, ed. European Family Law. The Impact of Institutions and Organisations on European Family Law I. Cheltnham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.
  12. 12. Deech, Ruth. “The Unmarried Father and Human Rights.” Tolley's J. Child L. 4 (1992): 3–10.
  13. 13. Dent, George W., Jr. “Traditional Marriage: Still Forth Defending.” BYU Journal of Public Law Vol 18 (2) (2004): 419–488.
  14. 14. Duggan, Magdalena. “Mater Semper Certa Est, Sed Pater Incertus? Determining Filiation of Children Conceived via Assisted Reproductive Techniques: Comparative Characteristics and Vision for the Future.” Irish Journal of Legal Studies 4(1) (2014): 1–2.
  15. 15. Duncan, William C. “Redefining Marriage, Redefining Parenthood.” Regent J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 157 6 (2013-2014): 157–180.
  16. 16. Feinberg, Jessica. “Exposing the Traditional Marriage Agenda.” Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy Vol 7(2) (2012): i–351.
  17. 17. Fenton-Glynn, Claire, ed. Children’s Rights in Intercountry Adoption. A European Perspective. Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland: Intersentia, 2014.10.1017/9781780684925
  18. 18. Fenton-Glynn, Claire. “Investigation and determination. Identifying a father”: 51–80. In: Claire Fenton-Glynn, ed. Children’s Rights in Intercountry Adoption. A European Perspective. Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland: Intersentia, 2014.
  19. 19. Fenton-Glynn, Claire. “Who am I? The Child’s Right to Identity”: 185–210. In: Claire Fenton-Glynn, ed. Children’s Rights in Intercountry Adoption. A European Perspective. Cambridge-Antwerpen-Portland: Intersentia, 2014.
  20. 20. Hoover, Brandon James. “Establishing the Best Answer to Paternity Disestablishment.” Ohio Northern University Law Review (2011): 145-167.
  21. 21. Jacobs, Melanie B. “Intentional Parenthood Influence: Rethinking Procreative Autonomy and Federal Paternity Establishment Policy.” Journal of Gender, Social Policy & The Law 20:3 (2012): 489-508.
  22. 22. Joslin, Courtney G. “Protecting Children: Marriage, Gender, and Assisted Reproductive Technology.” The Dukeminier Awards – Best Sexual Orientation and Sexual Identity Law Review Vol 10 (1) (2011): 43–96.
  23. 23. Kamei, Shelly Ann. “Partitioning Paternity: The German Approach to Disjuncture Between Genetic and Legal Paternity With Implications for American Courts.” San Diego Int’l L. J. 11 (2009-2010): 509–559.
  24. 24. Kelly, Fiona. “Producing Paternity: The Role of Legal Fatherhood in Maintaining the Traditional Family.” Can. J. Women & L. 21 (2009): 315–351.10.3138/cjwl.21.2.315
  25. 25. Lafferriere, Jorge Nicolás. “Artificial Reproductive Techniques and Parenting: Trends and Paradoxes.” Intl. J. Jurisprudence Fam. 2 (2011): 265–284.
  26. 26. Maillard, Kevin Noble. “Serial Paternity.” Mich. St. L. Rev. (2013): 1369–1384.
  27. 27. Margalit, Yehezkel, Orri Adam Levy, and John D. Loike. “The New Frontier of Advanced Reproductive Technology: Reevaluating Modern Legal Parenthood.” Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 37 (2014): 107–139.
  28. 28. Mulligan, Andrea. “Constitutional Parenthood in the Age of Assisted Reproduction.” Irish Jurist N.S. 51 (2014): 90–122.
  29. 29. Scherpe, Jens M. Organic European family law. The Present and Future of European Family Law IV. Cheltnham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.10.4337/9781785363078
  30. 30. Scherpe, Jens M. Parentage and surrogacy in a European perspective. European Family Law. Family Law in a European Perspective III. Cheltnham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.10.4337/9781785363054.00009
  31. 31. Singer, Anna. “The Right to the Child to Parents”: 137–149. In: Katharina Boele-Woelki, Nina Dethloff, and Werner Gephart, eds. Family Law and Culture. Cambridge: Intersentia, 2014.
  32. 32. Steinbock, Bonnie. “Defining Parenthood.” Int'l J. Child. Rts. 13 (2005): 287–310.10.1163/1571818054545213
  33. 33. Steiner, Eva. “The Tension Between Legal, Biological and Social Conceptions of Parenthood in English Law.” Report to the XVIIth International Congress of Comparative Law (July 2006). Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 10.3: 1–14.
  34. 34. Strumpf, Andrea E. “Redefining Mother. A Legal Matrix for New Reproductive Technologies.” Yale L. J. 96 (1986): 187–208.10.2307/796440
  35. 35. Swennen, Frederik. “The changing concept of ‘family’ and challenges for family law in the Benelux countries”: 5–21. In: Jens M. Scherpe, ed. European Family Law. The Changing Concept of ‘Family’ and Challenges for Domestic Family Law II. Cheltnham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.
  36. 36. Troiano, Stefano. “Understanding and Redefining the Rationale of State Policies Allowing Anonymous Birth: A Difficult Balance Between Conflicting Interests.” Intl. J. Jurisprudence Fam. 4 (2013): 177–204.
  37. 37. Wardle, Lynn D. “Children and the Future of Marriage.” Regent University Law Review Vol 17 (2) (2004-2005): 279–310.
  38. 1. Anayo vs Germany. ECtHR, Appl No 20578/07, 2011.
  39. 2. Berrehab vs Netherlands. ECtHR, Appl No 10730/84, 1998.
  40. 3. Elsholz vs Germany. ECtHR, Appl No 255735/94, 2000.
  41. 4. Johansen vs Norway. ECtHR, Appl No 17383/90, 1996.
  42. 5. Kroon and others vs the Netherlands. ECtHR, Appl No 00018535/91,1994.
  43. 6. Nylund vs Finland. ECtHR, Appl No 27110/95, 1999.
  44. 7. Rozanski vs Poland. ECtHR, Appl No 55339/00, 2006.
  45. 8. Shneider vs Germany. ECtHR, 1998.
  46. 9. Yousef vs Netherlands. ECtHR, Appl No 33711/96, 2001.
  47. 10. Zaunegger vs Germany. ECtHR, Appl No 22028/04.
Language: English
Page range: 23 - 42
Submitted on: Nov 11, 2016
Accepted on: Dec 12, 2016
Published on: Mar 4, 2017
Published by: Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy and the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania)
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2017 Kristi Joamets, Tanel Kerikmäe, published by Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy and the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.