In vitro fertilisation mix-ups and contested parenthood

In 2025, an Australian couple asked to have their remaining embryos moved to another clinic, only to discover that the child they had birthed 2 years earlier had not come from their own embryos, but an embryo belonging to a different couple. These situations can lead to disputes about who is recognised as 'the parents' in the biological or social sense, as well as who has moral or legal claims to parental rights and responsibilities. In terms of specific legal disputes over custody or guardianship, the matter will generally be resolved in the best interests of the child. However, one of the considerations relevant to this child's best interests is the question of biological relatedness, even if only due to the social weight it is often granted. This paper will argue that the current presumption in favour of genetics as determinative of biological relatedness is rebuttable in favour of the gestational relationship. Furthermore, there are other reasons to give weight to the moral, legal, or social claims of the gestational progenitors, such as bonds with the infant that have already been developed. However, such mix-ups will happen again and, in light of genomic technologies, may be discovered in vivo or immediately after birth, in which the courts may be ill-suited to determining the best interests. As such, legislative approaches to resolving parenthood in such cases must be proactively developed.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Medical Ethics
Published
2026-01-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-111285
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Reproductive Health and Technologies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
41.95

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

In vitro fertilisation mix-ups and contested parenthood

Hilary Bowman‐Smart, Andrew McGee, Sinead Prince, Julian Savulescu
1 citations
Journal of Medical Ethics
Reproductive Health and Technologies
41.95
article

In vitro fertilisation mix-ups and contested parenthood

Hilary Bowman‐Smart, Andrew McGee, Sinead Prince, Julian Savulescu
article en
1 citations

Abstract

In 2025, an Australian couple asked to have their remaining embryos moved to another clinic, only to discover that the child they had birthed 2 years earlier had not come from their own embryos, but an embryo belonging to a different couple. These situations can lead to disputes about who is recognised as 'the parents' in the biological or social sense, as well as who has moral or legal claims to parental rights and responsibilities. In terms of specific legal disputes over custody or guardianship, the matter will generally be resolved in the best interests of the child. However, one of the considerations relevant to this child's best interests is the question of biological relatedness, even if only due to the social weight it is often granted. This paper will argue that the current presumption in favour of genetics as determinative of biological relatedness is rebuttable in favour of the gestational relationship. Furthermore, there are other reasons to give weight to the moral, legal, or social claims of the gestational progenitors, such as bonds with the infant that have already been developed. However, such mix-ups will happen again and, in light of genomic technologies, may be discovered in vivo or immediately after birth, in which the courts may be ill-suited to determining the best interests. As such, legislative approaches to resolving parenthood in such cases must be proactively developed.

Journal of Medical Ethics
Queensland University of Technology (AU), National University of Singapore (SG), University of South Australia (AU), University of Oxford (GB), Murdoch Children's Research Institute (AU)
Wellcome Trust, National University of Singapore
Openalex Percentile: Top 2%
Reproductive Health and Technologies
41.95
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.