Jill Nagamine

The second meeting of the Act 156 Task Force on Parentage Laws focused on establishing permitted interaction groups (PIGs) to review the draft of the uniform parentage laws. Discussion centered on determining the number, focus, and order of review for these groups, referencing the latest draft provided. Key suggested focuses for the PIGs included protecting the interests of the LGBTQ community, addressing children born through assisted reproductive technology, ensuring practical enforcement through courts and practitioners, and examining paternity sections, surrogacy, and donor identification. There was also significant discussion regarding the need to resolve overarching policy issues, such as the use of anonymous donors, before proceeding with detailed drafting, as members hold differing views on core policy assumptions within the draft legislation.

The meeting was called to order, followed by a roll call confirming nine attendees. The session was dedicated to the presentation of documents by the drafting pig. Specifically, the drafting pig presented the draft final report and the draft proposed parentage bill, which incorporated policy choices made by the task force and addressed federal obligations. The meeting explicitly stated that all discussion and voting on these materials would be postponed until the following week's meeting. During the session, a member raised a question regarding Article 9, noting different versions from 2017, 2019, and 2024, clarifying that the 2019 version reflected the policy choices the task force had previously voted on, including provisions for anonymous donors. A member also inquired about including specific sections from another HRS chapter (33812 and 33815) on page 85; they were advised to submit proposed changes to Derek for circulation before the next meeting. The presiding member stressed that the current meeting was for presentation only, to avoid deliberation.

The meeting commenced with establishing a quorum and addressing procedural matters, including a required disclosure regarding attendance by Zoom. The main action item involved a motion, which was subsequently approved, to dissolve the existing Legal Parentage Task Force established on September 29, 2023, and immediately recreate a new one with the addition of Siana as a member. This restructuring was necessary to incorporate the new member effectively, as advised by the Office of Information Practices. Following this, the meeting transitioned to non-action items to review reports from various task forces, specifically focusing on concepts for the final reports. Key discussion points centered on expanding eligibility for the voluntary establishment of parentage (VEP) process to include intended parents and presumed parents, following the framework of the 2017 Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), although some inequities remain regarding genetic parent eligibility. Another major concept discussed was creating an uncontested parentage process through the Judiciary for unmarried partners who jointly agree to parent a child where the genetic parent is unknown. Additionally, there were discussions regarding proposed language changes concerning individuals established as genetic parents via court-ordered genetic testing, and ensuring a statutory provision is included to absolve the legal responsibility of department staff, hospitals, and midwives from subsequent litigation related to the VEP process.

The meeting commenced with acknowledgments regarding initial technical difficulties and the recording of the session, followed by procedural instructions for public testimony. The primary discussion revolved around agenda item B1b concerning the support for an amendment, specifically Article Nine, proposed by the Uniform Law Commission to be added to a uniform law. A member shared extensive commentary related to the Festival of the Pacific, the history of Polynesian voyaging, and issues concerning climate change and the necessity for understanding genealogy and identity. The task force also deliberated on the implications of adopting the proposed language, focusing on the disclosure requirements for donor identifying information for children of donors and surrogates. Concerns were raised regarding the potential disproportionate financial burden this places on same-sex and infertile couples seeking assisted reproductive technology compared to fertile, straight couples, referencing significant price discrepancies between known and anonymous donor vials. Clarification was sought regarding whether the proposed legislation regulates donor banks or the procedure itself, with the consensus leaning toward regulating donor banks, especially those operating within the jurisdiction.

The meeting commenced with roll call verification, confirming quorum, and addressing disclosures from attendees regarding personal interests related to agenda items. The chair outlined procedures for public testimony, limiting speakers to three minutes and emphasizing that written testimony should not be repeated. The primary focus of the discussion was the continued deliberation on the concepts and recommendations of the Birth Heritage Pig regarding Article Nine, which proposes that donor-conceived persons upon reaching age 18 can request the identity of their donors. A member provided an extensive argument supporting Article Nine, citing research from the University of Cambridge and Harvard Medical School regarding the negative psychological impacts of secrecy on donor-conceived individuals, drawing parallels to closed adoption experiences, and referencing Dr. Henry Louis Gates' work on genealogy. The speaker refuted claims that Article Nine constitutes mandatory disclosure that would hinder family formation, comparing it instead to sealed adoption record access upon request. Another member began to offer a statement from the perspective of the Hawaii State Commission on Fatherhood, focusing on principles best for children, but the provided text cuts off during this presentation.