How donor siblings navigate new family relationships
Sociological Accounts of Donor Siblings' Experiences: Their Importance for Self-Identity and New Kinship Relations (Hertz, 2022)
Hertz, R. (2022). Sociological accounts of donor siblings' experiences: Their importance for self-identity and new kinship relations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4), 2002. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042002
Geographic Region: United States (six major metropolitan areas)
Research Question: How do donor-conceived teens and young adults navigate relationships with their half siblings?
Design: The primary data was collected between 2014 and 2017 as part of a larger NSF-funded study, which included interviews with 212 parents and 154 donor-conceived children, from which 62 youth interviews were selected for this specific analysis. Follow-up data collection took place in 2020-2021 when ten additional interviews were conducted with college-age youth to examine how donor-sibling relationships evolved over time, particularly focusing on relationship maintenance without parental supervision and the impact of new siblings joining the network. In 2021, the original 62 interviews were re-coded by the author and a research assistant
Sample: The primary data set included 62 donor-conceived youth aged 14-28 (median age 17.5) of which 36 were females. Majority white, heterosexual, middle-class background. Participants had their own social media accounts. All had chosen to establish contact with donor siblings. 17 had contact with donors, 45 did not. Mix of household compositions (with/without siblings). The ten follow-up interviews included four youth who had siblings in their households, four youth who did not have household siblings, and pair of donor siblings from a large network.
Key Findings
Primary Data (62 interviews from 2014-2017)
Youth who grew up as only children were more open to considering donor siblings as family. About 71% of youth who had siblings at home only considered their household siblings as immediate family. Both groups could form meaningful relationships with donor siblings, but approached them differently.
Youth went through three main stages: anticipation, first contact, and relationship building. Most contact was parent-initiated (88% for single mother families, 67.9% for same-sex parent families, and 88.9% for heterosexual parent families). Parents typically arranged the first in-person meetings, which usually occurred in group settings or at hotels with multiple donor sibling families.
About 70% of all youth formed meaningful relationships with at least one donor sibling. Gender didn't affect how close youth felt to their donor siblings. It typically took at least a year of knowing each other to develop close relationships.
Youth generally established their own relationships as they entered their teen years. Social media was crucial for maintaining relationships. Individual messaging was more effective than group chats for building close relationships. Girls were more likely than boys to maintain regular social media contact.
Follow-up Interviews (10 interviews from 2020-2021)
Older networks (over 5 years) could be harder for new members to integrate into. Original members often remained closest to those they met first.
Youth developed their own communication patterns without parent involvement. New relationships often started through sharing common interests on social media. Relationships could stay strong even with infrequent contact.
Members maintained group identity even if they weren't all equally close.
Limitations: Sample potentially biased toward those interested in contact. Limited funding restricted follow-up interviews. Only included youth whose parents had disclosed donor conception. Unclear about when or how parents informed their children they were donor conceived.
Applications: Connections with donor siblings can be resource for exploring the foundations of personal identity, such as traits that may be genetic and ones that are unique. Belonging to a network of donor siblings is important even when membership in the network may be deemed purely instrumental (i.e., a source of potentially useful genetic or medical information only). Siblinghood takes work, either by the parents if the children are too young to initiate or by the youth themselves. This form of emotional labor largely taken for granted among siblings who share a common household. These relationships have to be intentionally established and sustained—in a fashion that siblings raised together discover only when they leave the household.
Funding Source: National Science Foundation (Social and Biogenetic Factors of New Forms of Family, Grants 1355726 and 1355740)
Lead Author: Rosanna Hertz is a professor in the Departments of Sociology and Women's and Gender Studies at Wellesley College, specializing in family sociology and new kinship formations.
Regulatory Context
There are no comprehensive federal laws regulating gamete donation or donor conception in the U.S. The process is largely self-regulated by the fertility industry.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does have some oversight, primarily related to screening and testing of donors for infectious diseases.
The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) provides ethical guidelines and recommendations for donation practices. However, these are not legally binding.
There are no legal limits on compensation for donors. A 2011 court ruling (Kamakahi v. ASRM) determined that price caps on donor compensation violate antitrust laws.
ASRM recommends a minimum age of 21 for gamete donors, but this is not legally mandated.
The U.S. does not have laws prohibiting anonymous donation.
Some states have enacted their own laws regarding aspects of assisted reproduction, and parentage, but these vary widely.