Reliance on grandparents for children's informal care is very popular in Australia. Yet little is known about the gendered dynamics of grandparental care. This study, based on 3000 grandparents taking part in Wave 7 of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics Survey (HILDA) and 14 in-depth interviews with grandparents, reveals that gendered inequalities associated with providing childcare significantly influence the lives of older Australians, particularly grandmothers. Grandmothers doing grandchildcare experience greater dissatisfaction with free time and more than their fair share of domestic labour compared to grandfathers. Gendered meanings and practices of grandchildcare evident in interviews position grandmothers as nurturing, coordinators of care. Grandfathers are somewhat influenced by notions of 'involved fathering' as they are emotionally engaged in children's recreational activities, yet are relatively free to opt in and out of caring labour. We conclude that the gendered organisation of grandchildcare is consistent with a dominant maternalist culture in Australia.

Intentionally planned parenthood by gay male couples through commercial and altruistic surrogacy is gaining momentum in Australia and abroad. Very little is known about this group of male parents, including the relational considerations important to them in forming families through surrogacy. This paper, based on in-depth interviews with six Australian gay male couples who utilized altruistic surrogacy in the state of Victoria, and commercial surrogacy arrangements in the US, considers the meaning and management of biogenetic paternity in the creation of their family relationships. Despite the extent to which participants underplayed the importance of paternal biological connections in creating or defining the meaning of family, biogenetic paternity remains an important kinship resource that must be carefully managed -emotionally and socially -in creating and maintaining couple, parent-child and extended family relationships. First, there was a keen emotional significance attributed to the biogenetic connection for some men in the context of their own family history and lineage. Second, the careful management of information and sharing or alternating sperm provision constituted an attempt by couples to thwart speculation among friends, family members and acquaintances about the identity of the biogenetic father. Third, despite some interest in sharing sperm provision in the interests of symbolically establishing shared parenthood, explicit knowledge of biogenetic paternity through DNA paternity testing was regarded as an important kinship and identity resource for children as they grow up. The paper concludes that when gay male couples form families through commercial or altruistic surrogacy, a range of symbols and metaphors conventional to heteronormative nuclear family formation are in play in this ostensibly unconventional context.

Lesbian and gay parented families are often viewed through the lens of ‘families of choice’, which assumes they are self-reflexive and innovative in structure. In recent years, some lesbians and gay men have informally negotiated reproductive relationships with friends or acquaintances. The varied kinship assumptions underpinning such relationships are the focus of this article. Three main approaches to family formation are identified: ‘standard donor’, ‘social solidarity’ and ‘co-parenting’. I argue that a continuum of kinship intentions is evident in these different approaches, and that the degree of innovation and convention needs to be unpacked, particularly with regard to the status of friendship as kinship. I comment on the persistent appeal of co-habiting coupledom as the basis for parenting and the perceived asymmetry between biological motherhood and fatherhood. In conceptualizing and negotiating reproductive relationships, lesbians and gay men may accept or reconfigure the assumptions characteristic of heteronormative clinical assisted reproductive technology (ART) conventions.

In June 2015, the state of Victoria, Australia retrospectively opened its sperm and egg donors’ records, becoming only the second jurisdiction in the world to do so and the first where substantial pre-legislative records are available and stored in a central register. The new legislation gave donor-conceived adults and donors who were conceived or donated under conditions of anonymity (ie prior to 1988) the right to apply to the state’s Central Register for each other’s identifying information, which is released to them if the subject of the application consents. Between the introduction of the law and its further amendment in March 2017, more than 100 applications were made. Through a thematic analysis of donor-conceived adults’ and donors’ Statements of Reasons – a written document applicants were required to complete when they applied – the article explores applicants’ motivations for applying, the information they sought, and their goals with regard to contact. The study found that most applicants were driven by curiosity and a desire for personal information about the other party. They also expressed a strong desire to meet and have an ongoing relationship with the subject of their application. The study also revealed an unanticipated desire on the part of previously anonymous donors for information about their offspring, suggesting future research could explore the emotional needs of donors in greater depth.

Lesbian mothers internationally have negotiated informal donor insemination arrangements with gay men since the earliest days of planned lesbian parenthood. In recent years, the relational status to children of these men has been subject to increasing legal and research scrutiny. In this article, based on interviews with Australian gay men, the various meanings of biological relatedness to children are explored from the men’s perspective. Of particular interest is the difference between a ‘donor’ and a ‘father’ for the men, and the extent of their complicity with patriarchal discourses about fatherhood. I argue that, on one level, it is important to distinguish between patriarchal concepts of relatedness that connote entitlement to authority, proprietoriality or legal rights over children, and the various other dimensions of affinity men revealed, including that predicated on biological relatedness. Men’s stories often indicated a strong sense of connection to children in the absence of a sense of parental entitlement. I also explore some slippage between ‘proprietorial’ and ‘connected’ concepts of relatedness which potentially have negative as well as positive implications for relationships with children growing up in lesbian-parented families and their mothers.

Planned parenthood within the international lesbian and gay communities has attracted considerable attention and controversy in the past decade. On 5 April 2002, Guest J of the Family Court of Australia acknowledged a lesbian couple as resident parents of 2-year-old 'Patrick'. This judgement was remarkable in that it signalled a break with the well-documented international legal non-recognition of lesbian non-biological parents. However, the judgement was actually a loss for the two women, who had initiated legal proceedings in a bid to have the biological father's contact visits with the child reduced. Contrary to their wishes, the biological father was awarded increased contact and a notion of 'father' was separated in law from 'parent.' In this article, via analysis of the judgement, several issues are examined. First, one dilemma Guest J was faced with was: are the best interests of a child in a lesbian-parented family served by recognizing a father as a means for a child to make sense of his biological origins, or, by allowing the child to form and maintain a 'father-like' social relationship? This dilemma made visible the somewhat arbitrary and subjective nature of the 'best interests' standard when it comes to deciding between characterizations of paternity that recognize the symbolism of biological connections versus those that recognize the blood tie as grounds for a regular paternal social relationship. In the absence of an obvious 'best interests' conclusion, the judge found himself in the difficult position of assessing both the original terms or intent of the parental agreement between the parties and the quality of the existing social relationship between biological father and child. It is argued that his assessment of both issues was, at times, coloured by an unsubstantiated assumption that the lesbian parents' concept of kinship was irrational. The 'Patrick' case also indicated the extent to which lesbians and gay men may have entirely different expectations and understandings of 'known donor' relationships. This finding is contextualized within broader historical and political developments within lesbian and gay cultures. The author's conclusion is that there is a pressing need for legislative, policy and community-based initiatives to guide and assist individuals who identify with these communities in the task of bringing children into the world.

No abstract

No abstract