Hey, this is a Family Law essay i wrote quite a while back on Surrogacy and birth technologies. I would really appreciate the feedback. I know i sometimes write more simply than others, but hopefully my work still shows sophistication. Also the idea of posting my essay for eveyone to see terrifies me, since the essays ive skim read so far, sound so good.
But dont let that stop you from being harsh... i promise not to cry too much 
Hey Mel! Please don't be frightened, I promise that we don't bite
seriously, good on you for posting and showing a commitment to improve, you are awesome!
Your essay is attached with comments throughout in bold!
Spoiler
Evaluate the Responsiveness of the legal system in achieving justice for family members with respect to the contemporary issue of surrogacy and birth technologies.
Legal bodies have been quite responsive in achieving justice for family members involved in the processes of surrogacy and birth technology. Great! I'd like to see some slightly higher modality language at the start there, the "quite" just makes you seem a little unsure of yourself. Further, try delving a little deeper, why is responding to these issues important? The legal system has strived for justice by creating and reforming laws that encourage fairness and equality while giving individuals relatively equal access. I get the sense here with your word choice that you might be about to argue a positive and negative side to this issue, if so that's great! Try to make it a little more obvious. If not, try to employ some higher modality language to make your positive position definite. Such laws include The Surrogacy Act 2010 (NSW) (TSA2010) and the Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2007 (NSW) (ART2007). Great introduction, but it could use a little more depth. What will your paragraphs discuss, for example? Just a little bit more to really get the reader oriented.
Surrogacy is an agreement between a commissioning couple (at least one partner is infertile) and a woman. She agrees to bear a child on their behalf, then “hand over” the baby once it’s born. The marker is a Legal Studies teacher, they know what surrogacy is! You could launch straight in (with some slight changes to expression) here: Admittedly, surrogacy raises many complex legal issues, to which the law has quite adequately responded to, to achieve justice. Be sure your intro reflects your subsequent arguments; You give "ineffective" in places here! The ART2007 banned commercial surrogacy in NSW. This was fairly ineffective for families, as it further reduced the number of surrogates, and forced them to rely on the complex process of overseas surrogacy, as according to the SMH, Australia accounts for 25% of all international surrogacy. Awesome. It unconsciously encouraged international surrogacy, which is an issue since overseas surrogacy cannot be regulated, hence can’t insure ensure justice for any family member. International Commercial surrogacy, costing up to $200,000 in the U.S (SMH), raised questions about how ‘just’ this law was in regards to access, as it made surrogacy only available for the relatively wealthy, thus not achieving justice for all family members. FABULOUS arguments! Very clear points made, and while you could be more succinct, it does work well. Just ensure your topic sentences reflect what follows, otherwise it becomes confusing for the reader.
Various recommendations were incorporated into TSA 2010, which has been reasonably effective in responding to the needs of family members and achieving justice for them. The law outlawed international commercial surrogacy, making it quite un-responsive to the needs of infertile couples, drastically reducing their options, however it was favourable in providing justice for the child. How? I'd like to see this drawn out more. Its outlaw prevented cases like ‘The Baby Gammy’ case 2015, where the couple abandoned the baby with the surrogate mother in Thailand, after he was born with Down syndrome. Try to be a little more sophisticated when discussing case details, just to avoid that "recount" style and maintain an objective, analytical perspective. Though many like Family Court, Chief Justice Diana Bryant argue that this case would not have happened if Commercial surrogacy had not been banned in Australia, as Australian laws could regulate this more effectively (SMH 2015). Watch saying things like "many like Family Court," what is your evidence of this?
The act has responded quite well to the needs of all family members, especially the child. Which act? Previously The Status of Children Act 1996 (NSW) (SCA96) stated that the child’s legal parents were its birth parents, which was unfair to the commissioning parents as they faced many difficulties while parenting the child. Seen in the Trea Burger case, where she could not enrol her child into school, sign hospital papers or access government benefits as she was not recognised as the child’s parent (Melbourne Uni Law Review). Good example to setup the remainder of your paragraph. TSA 2010 responds to this issue by providing a structure for the Supreme Court to transfer full legal parentage of the child to the commissioning parents, through a parenting order, whilst allowing their names to be written on the child’s birth certificate. It also states that a surrogacy agreement must be in writing, which will insure justice for all parties if the terms are clearly stated, and make it easier for the intended parents to obtain the parenting order. This is a much cheaper and shorter process than the previous method of formal adoption, thus is more accessible and responds more adequately to the circumstances of surrogacy. Excellent. The process needed to be simplified and clarified after the Re: Michael case, where the commissioning parents struggled to obtain parenting rights. The law also enforced counselling and legal advice to all parties to make sure they understand the implications, making the legal system highly responsive to the needs of family members. I'm missing a proper conclusion for your paragraphs: Something like a "Thus, the reforms to ______ effectively achieve justice in the areas of _________, that sort of thing.
TSA has also been reformed to focus on the best interest of the child, as a parenting order will only be given if it is. If it is what? Clause 16 says that the parentage application must include a counsellor’s report assuring it would be in the child’s best interest. Under this law the intended parents can apply for the parentage order between 30 days and six months after the child is born. Although the 30 day ‘cooling off’ period undermines the integrity of surrogacy contracts, the max limit secures stable arrangements for the child. Watch (and this is a slight issue in other places too) that you don't focus on the information/detail of the law. Assume your marker knows it. Your focus needs to be on evaluation, on making "effective" or "ineffective" judgements. It also ensures that the status of the child will be recognised in wills and property. Thus effectively recognising the rights of children, or something, link it back to your argument at all times! The new law extends surrogacy not only being for “medical” needs, but also social, which is very effective in responding to the needs of homo-sexual couples, insuring justice through equality. The above points can be seen in the DT article 2012 where two men are the first same sex couple in NSW to be declared parents of a surrogate baby, with the court ruling “Best interest of the child.” This media article doesn't add too much to the argument. Thus it is clear that the law recognises the importance of surrogacy and has responded quite effectively, hence insured justice. Better conclusion here!
New artificial reproductive technologies, such as in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and artificial insemination have allowed for many infertile couples to become parents. The law has been relatively effective in responding to the issues that arise, thus been favourable in achieving justice for family members. This is a solid introduction, it sets up the paragraph well. The SCA96 provides justice through equality, as it states artificially produced children have the same status as naturally conceived children. It also responds very effectively by establishing that the ‘presumption of paternity’ is automatic, and irrefutable if the couple are married or de-facto, which allows parenting decisions to be made easier. If the woman is pregnant with donated sperm from someone other than her partner, the partner is presumed to be the father of the child. This is evident in the B v J case 1996, where the father refused to pay maintenance, arguing it was the responsibility of the donor who appeared on the birth certificate, however this was rejected under the ‘presumption of paternity.’ How does this example relate to the main argument you are making? Be VERY careful that you don't introduce an example for no reason, relate everything back to your judgement!
The legal system has also been highly responsive to the needs of homosexual’s couples, by insuring that laws are changed to guarantee them justice, particularly equality. By changing the SCA96 with The Miscellaneous Acts Amendment (Same Sex Relationships) Act 2008, the legal system responded adequately to homosexual relationships. As many called for “Amendments to the SCA96 that would extend ‘presumption of parentage’ to the female partner of a woman who has a child through artificial insemination” (SMH 2005). The law did just that, by allowing women to be co-mothers and have equal status, thus fixing the problem that would have been an issue for the lesbian couple in the Re: Patrick case 2002. More than style, be careful that your tone remains sophisticated. Statements like "the law did just that," read more like a speech, try to conform as much as possible to a very academic, objective tone to your writing.
Finally the ART2007 also helped the legal system achieve justice for family members involved in IVF and AF as it established a mandatory gamete donor register, so that children can access their genetic information. This follows CROC, ‘all children have the right to know their biological parents’, thus responds well to the child’s needs, whilst still protecting the donor by stating no financial liability can be claimed against them. Be sure to give the full name of CROC the first time you use it! Despite this, according to the SMH “The numbers fell sharply when donors had to agree to be identified so offspring could contact them.” Which is very ineffective for infertile couples, as there was already a much higher demand than supply. The act also allows equal rights to for all types of couples to receive IVF treatment, with Medicare will be covering around 50% of costs (SMH 2010), which is highly effective for infertile couples in giving them access to the expensive technology. However its effectiveness is undermined by the fact that it is only available to those who are medically infertile, meaning there is lack of access for single women and homosexual couples (socially infertile.) It is evident that legal bodies have been relatively effective in responding to the rising issues and providing justice for family members in the IVF and AF processes.
To conclude, it is evident that the legal system has been highly responsive to the contemporary issues that surround surrogacy and Artificial Reproductive Technologies, and has been reasonably effective in achieving justice for family members. I'd like to see a little more depth in this conclusion. What sorts of things have you discussed that have proved your point? Conclusions need to be a solid 3-4 sentences, this is a little lacking.
Okay, so to address your concern about "writing style" first. Yes, your style isn't as "sophisticated" as others, but that isn't an issue. Clarity is the most important thing, and you achieved clarity extremely well in your piece. In most places, your ideas were well expressed and well fleshed out, your style did not hinder you at all. There were a few places where I'd tidy up the expression, and you can definitely work on being little more succinct if you want to, but I don't see any major issues with style here! I popped a few comments throughout as to some areas where I'd change the expression a little
Your examples are fabulous. Lots of cases (which can be tricky for this Option) and good references to legislation, and lots of media articles to re-enforce your points. That works extremely well. I'd like to see you diversity your response though:
The Legal system encompasses laws, courts, and other legal mechanisms; not just legislation. Perhaps investigate discussing the Family Court as a response specifically, for example. I think what you have works well, but you can branch out and get some more to discuss.
Mostly, your examples were linked to your argument well. In a number of places however, I was looking for more evaluation. Sometimes, your information took over your judgements, which are more important. Remember, your marker is a Legal teacher! You can save words by not discussing complex details of laws/cases and just going:
"This case where this happened demonstrates the effectiveness of these reforms. Boom bada boom. Very succinct, because the marker doesn't care about small details. THEY WANT YOUR JUDGEMENT!
Your structure is effective, in that you have a main idea that is sustained, but it is lacking proper introductions and conclusions in every paragraph. Further, although your smaller paragraphs do have a common theme threaded, it could be a little clearer. Adding intro/conclusions may help that. I do think it would be worth blending a number of your paragraphs together in a way that works for you, just so your ideas are grouped a little nicer. The small paragraphs don't give you a chance to truly develop an idea for the reader, even if that idea continues through multiple paragraphs. At times I found myself having to go back and read prior paragraphs to orient myself, and that is a BIG no no
All that said; you have an essay with mostly clear judgements, lots of evidence to support those judgements, and an argument that is mostly sustained throughout. This is a great essay, the backbone is there! It just needs a bit of cut and polish I think
great work Mel!
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Free Legal Essay Marking! (Read 187656 times)