[1. Abrams, Kerry, and R. Kent Piacenti. “Immigration’s Family Values.” Virginia Law Review 100(4) (2014): 629–649.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Atack, Megan. “Traditional and Functional Views of the Family in the Law.” North East Law Review 56 (2016): 56–61.]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Baker, Katharine K. “Bionormativity and the Construction of Parenthood.” Psychology and Feminist Legal Theory. Emory University of Law (Dec. 1-2, 2006).]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Boyd, Susan B. “Gendering Legal Parenthood: Bio-Genetic Ties, Intentionally and Responsibly.” Windsor Y.B. Access Just 25 (2007): 1–29.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Browne-Barbour, Vanessa S. “‘Mama’s Baby, Papa’s Maybe’: Disestablishment of Paternity.” Akron L.Rev. 48 (2015): 263–314.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Bryan, Jennifer. “Parenting Rights in California: Marriage v. Biology.” U. S. F. L. Rew 47 (2012-2013): 571–592.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Carbone, June, and Naomi Cahn. “Marriage, Parentage, and Child Support.” Family Law Quaterly 45(2) (2011): 219–240.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Deech, Ruth. “The Unmarried Father and Human Rights.” Tolley's J. Child L. 4 (1992): 3–10.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Dent, George W., Jr. “Traditional Marriage: Still Forth Defending.” BYU Journal of Public Law Vol 18 (2) (2004): 419–488.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Duncan, William C. “Redefining Marriage, Redefining Parenthood.” Regent J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 157 6 (2013-2014): 157–180.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Feinberg, Jessica. “Exposing the Traditional Marriage Agenda.” Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy Vol 7(2) (2012): i–351.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Fenton-Glynn, Claire, ed. Children’s Rights in Intercountry Adoption. A European Perspective. Cambridge-Antwerp-Portland: Intersentia, 2014.10.1017/9781780684925]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Hoover, Brandon James. “Establishing the Best Answer to Paternity Disestablishment.” Ohio Northern University Law Review (2011): 145-167.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Lafferriere, Jorge Nicolás. “Artificial Reproductive Techniques and Parenting: Trends and Paradoxes.” Intl. J. Jurisprudence Fam. 2 (2011): 265–284.]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Maillard, Kevin Noble. “Serial Paternity.” Mich. St. L. Rev. (2013): 1369–1384.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Mulligan, Andrea. “Constitutional Parenthood in the Age of Assisted Reproduction.” Irish Jurist N.S. 51 (2014): 90–122.]Search in Google Scholar
[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]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Steinbock, Bonnie. “Defining Parenthood.” Int'l J. Child. Rts. 13 (2005): 287–310.10.1163/1571818054545213]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Strumpf, Andrea E. “Redefining Mother. A Legal Matrix for New Reproductive Technologies.” Yale L. J. 96 (1986): 187–208.10.2307/796440]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[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.]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Wardle, Lynn D. “Children and the Future of Marriage.” Regent University Law Review Vol 17 (2) (2004-2005): 279–310.]Search in Google Scholar
[1. Anayo vs Germany. ECtHR, Appl No 20578/07, 2011.]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Berrehab vs Netherlands. ECtHR, Appl No 10730/84, 1998.]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Elsholz vs Germany. ECtHR, Appl No 255735/94, 2000.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Johansen vs Norway. ECtHR, Appl No 17383/90, 1996.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Kroon and others vs the Netherlands. ECtHR, Appl No 00018535/91,1994.]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Nylund vs Finland. ECtHR, Appl No 27110/95, 1999.]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Rozanski vs Poland. ECtHR, Appl No 55339/00, 2006.]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Shneider vs Germany. ECtHR, 1998.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Yousef vs Netherlands. ECtHR, Appl No 33711/96, 2001.]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Zaunegger vs Germany. ECtHR, Appl No 22028/04.]Search in Google Scholar
