Available in Audio Format:

What is a parent?  

In recent decades, society has been asking questions whose answers should be self-evident. What is marriage? What is a woman? These questions are being asked because our society doesn’t want to accept God’s created designs for humanity. Instead, they want to create their own standards and their own definitions. 

This humanist endeavour is continuing with British Columbia’s announcement that it will be updating the definition of parentage in its Family Law Act. Among other things, the proposed changes would allow all children (not just those born through assisted reproduction) to have up to four parents, define parentage based on “intent” rather than biology, permit “sperm donation through sexual intercourse” (e.g. Tinder for reproduction), and expunge all gendered language from the law.  

In 2016, we raised the alarm bells when Ontario made similar changes in its All Families are Equal Act. The British Columbia Family Law Act is already bad enough and in need of reform. But rather than reforming the law to better harmonize with God’s pattern for parenthood, this new British Columbia proposal is the province’s equivalent of the All Families are Equal Act.  

But before we get to the proposal itself, what does British Columbia’s family law say right now? 

Current BC Family Law

British Columbia’s current Family Law Act starts well. The law clearly states that for “the birth of a child not born as a result of assisted reproduction, the child’s parents are the birth mother and the child’s biological father.” This presumption of parentage would cover the vast majority of children. So far, so good. Biology rules. 

But of course, assisted reproduction complicates this. In fact, British Columbia’s 2011 Family Law Act comprehensively addressed new forms of assisted reproduction. The Family Law Act clearly states that sperm, egg, and embryo donors are not automatically parents of a child born through assisted reproduction unless they expressly consent to be a parent prior to conception. Generally speaking, the birth mother and her spouse are considered the legal parents.  

However, if a surrogate mother is impregnated and gives birth to a child, she may “surrender” the child to an intended parent or intended parents. She forfeits her claim to be the legal parent of that child. With low barriers to surrogacy, a British Columbia Law Institute report commissioned by the government as a basis for the update of the parentage law, suggested that British Columbia is “the most ‘surrogacy-friendly’” province in Canada.  

Further complicating matters, before a child is conceived through assisted reproduction, an intended parent or intended parents may enter a written agreement with a potential birth mother and her spouse and/or the genetic mother and genetic father so that up to all six can be recognized as parents of the agreed-upon child. Thus, BC’s current family law allows for a child born through assisted reproduction to have up to six parents: up to three mothers and three fathers. 

This family law regime tears parenthood apart. Fatherhood is trifurcated into intended fatherhood, step-fatherhood (the spouse of the birth mother), and genetic fatherhood. Motherhood is further divided into intended mother, birth mother, and genetic mother.  

Intended Changes to BC Family Law 

But British Columbia is proposing to undermine the family unit even more. In their Intentions Paper for the Family Law Act, the province lists various misguided changes to parentage rules. 

First of all, the paper recommends “removing legislative inconsistencies for children conceived through sexual intercourse and children conceived using assisted reproduction.” Apparently, recognizing more parents of children conceived through assisted reproduction than natural reproduction is discriminatory. Why should a child born through assisted reproduction have up to six parents, but a child born through sexual intercourse only two parents? Never mind the creational fact that it is not good for fatherhood and motherhood to be bifurcated and even trifurcated through assisted reproduction. Now the government is proposing that children conceived naturally also have shattered parents. If all four parties sign a written agreement before the child is conceived, a naturally conceived child can have four parents: a genetic mother, a genetic father, an intended mother, and an intended father. 

One of the justifications for this change is the shifting social and even legal perceptions of parenthood. The British Columbia Law Institute report describes a recent legal case involving a polyamorous triad. 

The parties conceived a child through sexual intercourse. This resulted in two biological parents, and a non-biological parent. Due to the restrictions outlined above, the parties were forced to make a court application to have the non-biological party named a parent. In reviewing the Family Law Act in this case, the court stated:  

there is a gap in the FLA with regard to children conceived through sexual intercourse who have more than two parents. The evidence indicates that the legislature did not foresee the possibility a child might be conceived through sexual intercourse and have more than two parents. Put bluntly, the legislature did not contemplate polyamorous families. This oversight is perhaps a reflection of changing social conditions and attitudes . . . or perhaps is simply a misstep by the legislature. Regardless, the FLA does not adequately provide for polyamorous families in the context of parentage. 

But of course, the legislature didn’t contemplate polyamorous families! Polygamy – the recognition of a marriage between more than two people – is illegal. The federal government, which has jurisdiction over the definition of marriage, has clearly stated that marriage is only between two people, to the exclusion of all else. Why would the government legally recognize all members of a polyamorous relationship as parents when it doesn’t recognize polygamy itself? (As an aside, this is exactly the avenue taken in the legalization of same-sex marriage. Governments began recognizing same-sex couples as parents of children that were not their own. After this recognition, the argument essentially was that if you recognize a same-sex couple as parents of a child, why shouldn’t the government recognize the same-sex marriage itself.) 

Second, the policy intentions paper suggests “considering parentage when a child is conceived using assisted reproduction from the lens of ‘intention to parent’ rather than genetic connection.” In other words, the creational pattern that parenthood is defined by biology is fully severed. Like so many other areas of public policy in the modern day, only intention and consent now matter. Sperm donors, egg donors, or surrogate mothers are simply tools to get the job done. They are usually denied parenthood status. (Unless, of course, the intended parents want these reproductive actors to be parents as well. Then they do get to become parents.) 

Third, the paper counsels that family law permit “sperm donation by sexual intercourse.” Currently, British Columbia requires assisted reproduction to use procedures such as in vitro fertilization – where a sperm fertilizes an egg in a petri dish –  or artificial insemination – where a turkey baster-like device deposits the sperm into a woman. “Sperm donation by sexual intercourse” is more natural… but far more immoral. It requires a man to have sex with a woman who is not his wife and who may already be married, so that she becomes pregnant.  

Imagine (or don’t imagine) a husband and wife of many years, Jack and Jane. They are unable to have children, so they invite Bob to sleep with Jane so that she becomes pregnant. But since pregnancy often doesn’t happen “on the first try,” Bob may have to have sex with Jane many times before Jack and Jane get what they want: a child. Genetically speaking, Bob would be the genetic parent of the child. But as long as he signs a pre-conception agreement with Jack and Jane that he doesn’t want to be the father, he won’t be legally recognized as the father. Unless, of course, Jack and Jane and Bob want him to be a third parent. All of this is, in the words of the report, so that families “have more reproductive choice.” 

Thankfully, the report rejected a recommendation from the British Columbia Law Institute that suggested that children should be able to have an unlimited number of parents. The committee writing the report was “concerned that any number set out in legislation would be arbitrary and would have the effect of cutting out some families… in the committee’s view, the law shouldn’t be looking for ways to keep them out of forming families. It should aim to treat everyone with dignity and on the same footing.” 

The committee is right that any number would be arbitrary. Any number, of course, but two. The genetic mother and the genetic father. 

Finally, the report advises that the Family Law Act replace gendered language with language that is more inclusive, “regardless of family members’ gender, gender identity, sex, or sexual orientation.” So, no more mention of fathers or mothers. “He” and “she” pronouns will be deleted. The gender-neutral term “parents” will remain in the legislation, but people will be described as the “person who provides the egg” or the “person who provides the sperm.” The cumbersome terms “the person’s” or the grammatically ambiguous “their” will likely be used in place of pronouns. All in an attempt to erase the sex binary from the legislation. 

Conclusion 

There is no definitive timetable for when legislation to make these changes will be proposed. The Policy Intentions Paper states, “The Paper allows the Ministry to share its intentions for policy change before the legislative amendments are drafted and introduced to Cabinet.” In the government’s press release, “the proposed policy changes will inform amendments to the FLA, which will be introduced to the legislature for consideration as soon as is feasible.” The legislature reconvenes on October 6 for the better part of two months, making that the first day that we could see new legislation tabled.