I recently read about a woman who was given up for adoption, found out who her biological mother was, and is now asking for a part of her multi-million dollar estate. My first thought was, of course she's entitled to a part of the estate. And then I thought about it a little more. I don't think my opinion has changed, but the issue does open up a whole can of worms.
Children who are adopted are considered legal heirs to their adopted parents estates, aren't they? So why shouldn't biological children have the same rights even if they were given up for adoption? Here's where it gets sticky - what about all those children conceived via sperm donations? Would allowing an adopted but biological child to make claim on an estate open up the door for sperm donor babies to go after Donor # 709?
I'm sure that there are tons of forms and papers and legal documents that the mothers sign waiving any and all rights for themselves and their potential children before they are ever allowed to make a withdrawal, but someday, don't you think someone is going to try to test that?
I'm already waiting for sperm donor kids to grow up, go out and multiply with each other. Seriously. I mean, they had all these sperm donor babies on the news together. All these women who used Sperm Donor # 401 - basically their children are all half-siblings to each other. Is there going to come a day when these kids grow up, start dating, and have to tell their potential mates "Hey, just so you know, my father is Donor # 401 from the Fairfax Cryobank. Who is your father?"
I don't know. Wacky world we live in, isn't it? Here's an interesting story at Slate with lots of other links. Something to think about.