A family tree starts with you, adds a branch for each parent, then doubles the branches for each generation. We all know the format. Or we thought we did. In the past four decades, scientific and technological advances coupled with increasing social diversity and tolerance have begun to change the traditional family tree. In the new millennium, the speed and frequency of change is bound to accelerate.
Variations in the social face of the family is one of these changes. U.S. Census Bureau statistics documented some of the changes: In 1990 only 25.9 percent of households consisted of a married couple with children, compared to 40.3 percent in 1970. Recent demographic studies show a further decrease in marriage rates and an increase in single and non-traditional households.1 To adapt to social changes in families, better genealogical software has added an option to trace the bonded family line. But it is not the social changes that are creating the real havoc for the configuration of family trees.
Creating a Family
Do you remember when you heard about the first surrogate mother? I couldn’t understand anyone going to that extreme to have a child. A few years later, a friend told me about a former coworker of ours who had a baby via a surrogate mother. Then two years ago, another couple I know had their baby by way of a surrogate mother. No longer could I discount this as something out on the fringe. I also know a lesbian couple who sought the services of a sperm donor so they could conceive a child through artificial insemination.
“Assisted reproduction,” “collaborative reproduction,” or “third-party parenting” describe the various methods of non-traditional procreation. Assisted methods include everything from in vitro fertilization using a couple’s own egg and sperm, to egg or sperm donation, to embryo adoption, to various types of surrogate birth arrangements, to different combinations of these procedures. All except the first of these methods will cause a genealogical conundrum. However, for the individual or couple who experience some barrier preventing conception or birth of a child, resources are as close as their favorite Web search engine.2
A Little History
The concept of a surrogate birth mother has been around since ancient times, and is even mentioned in the Bible. Artificial insemination is not a new practice, either. The first success in humans took place in the 1790s through the efforts of Dr. John Hunter, a Scottish surgeon. Since the father of the child was the woman’s husband, this event did not change a family tree.3
However, an alleged 1884 experiment at the Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia made a medical student the first anonymous sperm donor. A class discussion of a patient whose husband was sterile allegedly led to a student providing semen to artificially inseminate the woman without her knowledge. (Obviously this was long before the days of informed consent.) Although her husband was told what had occurred, the woman herself never learned the truth. If her son has descendants, they will never know of this alteration in their family tree.4
Modern use of donor insemination came into public knowledge as a result of a 1954 report in The British Medical Journal. However, babies conceived through use of donor sperm were not recognized as legitimate for some years. State laws in the United States began to change in 1964. As long as both husband and wife consent, the woman’s husband is legally considered the child’s father, even though he has no biological connection.
Modern use of surrogate mothers was first publicized in the United States in 1980, and in Britain, in 1985. By 1990, there were 200 clinics in the United States providing for parenthood through surrogacy. 1984 saw the first report of a child conceived through the use of donor eggs. The newest twist on this is insertion of the genetic material from the nucleus of one woman’s egg into the cytoplasm of another woman’s egg, because the first woman’s eggs are too frail to implant, perhaps due to age.5
A Genealogist’s Nightmare
Children’s books are available to help a parent answer the child’s question, “Where did I come from?” even when the answer involves donors and surrogates.6 But there are no books or guides addressing the plight of a genealogist trying to trace an alternatively conceived child’s lineage. And the likelihood of a genealogist encountering this situation increases every year.
Looking at the numbers in the United States, about 20,000 babies had been conceived with donor sperm by 1983.7 Surrogate births by 1990 were estimated to be about 1,500.8 The number had increased to 4,000 by 1996, and by 1996 the Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology reported there had been more than 12,000 surrogate births.9 In 1994 there were 1,240 births resulting from donor eggs.10 Statistics from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine indicate assisted techniques accounted for 11,315 babies in 1995, then almost doubled in one year, jumping in 1996 to 21,198 births.11
These alternative conception and birthing arrangements are not addressed in any genealogical course or guide that I know of. How should a genealogist record the ancestry of a baby with multiple parents? Which and how many lines of social or biological mothers and social or biological fathers should be included for an accurate representation of a child’s forebears? Meanwhile, makers of genealogical software should begin to consider how to conceptualize a family tree that may have more than two branches stemming from any one individual.
Of course, the truth of a child’s background may not be known to anyone outside of the couple and their physician, especially in the earliest cases of sperm donation when a child would have been considered illegitimate. Normally a genealogist hates family secrets that prevent the tracing of an accurate lineage. However, we may come to revere couples who keep the details of a child’s conception secret, allowing us, in ignorant bliss, to trace a standard family tree.
If a genealogist traces biological lines, the next problem is how to get the information. Generally egg and sperm donors have been guaranteed anonymity. Although most donors want their privacy protected, laws on this may be changing. In Britain, offspring of anonymous sperm donors are following the lead of adoptees in pushing for revision of the law. Some U.S. sperm banks have changed the rules, with at least one requiring sperm donors to agree to meet offspring when a child turns 18.12
Into the Future
Tracing ancestors is only half of genealogy. The other half is tracing descendants. A couple who uses in vitro fertilization often has additional embryos left in storage after they complete a successful pregnancy. These embryos may be offered for adoption to other couples in the United States or elsewhere. Legal and technological limitations in other countries or lack of availability of resources is leading to a growing business in the transfer of sperm and eggs from U.S. donors to potential parents in other countries.13 Try tracing all these worldwide, multicultural, genetic offspring.
Beyond this medical dilemma, genealogical software has other adaptations to make. Safety checks that are often included are designed to prevent errors by detecting impossible relationships, such as a child born before its parent. Although science and technology will never be able to alter that reality, other safety checks are no longer on such firm ground. Examples include a child born more than nine months after the death of its mother or father, or a child born of a woman in her eighties. Dead men’s sperm and eggs of dead women can now be frozen and used years later to produce a child.14 With the discovery of chemicals that can prevent ovarian cells from aging, women of the future may be able to maintain their child-bearing capacity for as long as they choose.15
A foray into the genealogy of the new millennium would be incomplete if I did not include the topic of cloning. Aside from physicians in Chicago and South Africa who declared their interest in creating human clones, scientists in labs have already succeeded in initiating the cloning process with human cells, though none were allowed to progress beyond a few cell divisions. Regardless of how much it sounds like science fiction, and regardless of the laws passed by governments to prevent it, cloning of humans appears inevitable.16
Just Keep Smiling
Humorists on the Web keep beating me to the punch. As we enter the new millennium, the traditional form of a family tree will not suffice for all the alternatives in parent-child connections that are developing as a result of science and technology. With the passage of time, more of us may be faced with our own families’ version of this “Genealogist’s Dilemma”:
A modern mother is explaining to her little girl about pictures in the family photo album.
“This is the geneticist with your surrogate mother and here’s your sperm donor and your father’s clone. This is me holding you when you were just a frozen embryo. The lady with the very troubled look on her face is your aunt, a genealogist.”17
Notes
1“Married With Children: The Waning Icon.” New York Times. 1991.
Lugaila, Terry A. “Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1998 (Update).” Current Population Reports. Dec. 1998.
U.S. Census Bureau. “The Official Statistics.” 29 Oct. 1998. http://blue.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/ms-la.html (3 Nov. 1999).
Coontz, Stephanie, and others. “The American Family.” Life. Nov. 1999: 79-94.
2Association of Certified Family Law Specialists. “Opening Brief In Support of Appellant/Petitioner Jaycee B.” The American Surrogacy Center, Inc. 1997. www.surrogacy.com/legals/jaycee/jaycee.html#N_1_ (17 Nov. 1999).
Vorzimer, Andrew W. and Lori A. Shafton. “Guide to Infertility Options Through Assisted Reproductive Technologies.” Academy of Assisted Reproductive Technology. 1997. www.reproduction.net/guests/articles/guide.htm (3 Nov. 1999).
3The Reproductive Specialty Center. “Surrogacy: Religion and History.” 1998. www.drary.com/surrogate.htm (17 Nov. 1999).
Fader, Sonia. “History of Semen Banks.” [From Sperm Banking: A Reproductive Resource. California Cryobank, Inc., 1993.] (17 Nov. 1999).
4Fader. (17 Nov. 1999).
5Surrogate Parenting Associates. “History of SPA.” www.win.net/~surrogate/spa_1.htm (3 Nov. 1999).
"First British Surrogate Mother Investigates Surrogacy in the U. S." Reporting on Infertility and Assisted Reproductive Technologies, vol. 1, no. 2. 1990. www.creatingfamilies.com/news90.HTML#cotton (17 Nov. 1999).
Omandan, Pat. “Egg Donation Can Help Produce Pregnancy.” Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 28 July 1997. www.starbulletin.com/97/07/28/news/story2.html (3 Nov. 1999).
6Organization of Parents Through Surrogacy (OPTS). www.opts.com/ (3 Nov. 1999). [Children’s books are in the OPTS Bookshelf.]
7Perloe, Mark, M.D. “Donor Insemination-An Acceptable Alternative.” Atlanta Reproductive Health Centre. 1999. www.ivf.com/donorins.html (3 Nov. 1999).
8“Surrogacy: The Quiet Success Story.” Reporting on Infertility and Assisted Reproductive Technologies. vol. 1, no. 2. 1990. www.creatingfamilies.com/news90.HTML#success (17 Nov. 1999).
9Hanafin, Hilary. “Overview of Surrogacy Parenting.” The American Surrogacy Center, Inc. Marietta, GA: 1996. www.surrogacy.com/psychres/article/eval.html (3 Nov. 1999).
Vorzimer and Shafton. www.reproduction.net/guests/articles/guide.htm (3 Nov. 1999).
10Omandan. www.starbulletin.com/97/07/28/news/story2.html (3 Nov. 1999).
11Weiss, Rick. “Babies in Limbo: Laws Outpaced by Fertility Advances.” Washington Post. 8 Feb. 1998. A1. (17 Nov. 1999).
Associated Press. “The Harsh Facts of Life for Black People Seeking Egg, Sperm Donors.” CNN Interactive. 3 Jul. 1999. (3 Nov. 1999).
12“Government Reviews Sperm Donor Anonymity.” BBC News. 26 Jul. 1999. http://news2.thls.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/
newsid_404000/404096.stm (3 Nov. 1999).
13“International Frozen Embryo Shipping Program a Success,” Reporting on Infertility and Assisted Reproductive Technologies. vol. 1, no. 4. Spring, 1993. www.creatingfamilies.com/news93.HTML#frozen (3 Nov. 1999).
Kolata, Gina. “Americans’ Eggs, Sperm in Demand Worldwide.” New York Times. 4 Jan. 1998. www.seattletimes.com/extra/browse/html98/alteggs_010498.html (3 Nov. 1999).
14“British Widow Wins Fight to Have Dead Husband’s Baby.” CNN Interactive. 6 Feb. 1997. http://cnn.com/WORLD/9702/06/briefs/britain.html (3 Nov. 1999).
Grazi, Richard V. and Joel B. Wolowelsky. “Posthumous Use of Cryropreserved Sperm.” Brooklyn IVF Newsletter. [From Le’ela. no. 43. Apr. 1997.] http://brooklyn-ivf.com/html/posthumous.html (3 Nov. 1999).
Jeffrey P. Kahn. “Forced Fatherhood.” CNN Interactive—Ethics Matter. 5 Apr. 1999. http://cnn.com/HEALTH/bioethics/
9904/postmortem.sperm/template.html (3 Nov. 1999).
Weiss. (17 Nov. 1999).
15“New Implants Will Give Women Lifelong Fertility.” Innovation. PBS Online. [From Times (London). 9 Nov. 1997.] www.wnet.org/archive/innovation/news/html/fertility.html (3 Nov. 1999).
16Cloning News. Dream Technologies International. various dates. www.d-b.net/dti/news.html. (3 Nov. 1999). [Although the news items are factual, the remainder of the site is a spoof, but check out the FAQ page&3151;it’s so good it may have you believing!
www.d-b.net/dti/faq.html#26]
17“The Future Family Tree.” [From Placer Trails, Placer Co., CA newsletter.] www.rootsweb.com/~okgenweb/funstuff.htm#future (24 Oct.1999). [The same joke is on several Web sites, but this was the only one that gave credit to what might be the original source.]
Candace Doriott, a registered nurse, has served on the board of directors of the Detroit Society for Genealogical Research. She can be reached at cdoriott@earthlink.net.
Genealogical Computing
