have standing to sue an intact family to assert his rights of fatherhood. Another UPA (1973) state, Colorado, has declared that under its state constitution the father may not be denied such rights. Texas, which has adopted many of the provisions of UPA (1973), reached much the same conclusion. Similarly, a judgment's binding effect on the child or on others seeking to claim a benefit of the judgment or to attack the judgment collaterally is confused in the case law. Adding to the confusion is the fact that UPA (1973) is entirely silent regarding the relationship between a divorce and a determination of parentage. Finally, the incredible scientific advances in parentage testing since 1973 warrant a thoroughgoing revision of the Act.

Beginning in the 1980s, states began to adopt paternity registries in an attempt to deal with the risk of a man's subsequent claim of paternity after the mother relinquishes a child for adoption. Although at that time the Conference rejected a paternity registry as a solution, it promulgated the Uniform Putative and Unknown Fathers Act in 1988 (UPUFA) to deal with the rights of such men. However, UPUFA has not been enacted by any state. In 1988 the Conference also adopted the Uniform Status of Children of Assisted Conception Act (USCACA). Assisted reproduction and gestational agreements became commonplace in the 1990s, long after the promulgation of UPA (1973). The USCACA resembled a model act more than a uniform act because it provided two opposing options regarding "gestational agreements." To date, only two states have enacted USCACA, each choosing a different option.

The promulgation of the Uniform Parentage Act in 2000, as amended in 2002, is now the official recommendation of the Conference on the subject of parentage. This Act relegates to history all of the earlier uniform acts dealing with parentage, to wit, UPA (1973). UPUFA (1988), and USCACA (1988). The amendments of 2002 are the end-result of objections lodged by the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and the ABA Committee on the Unmet Legal Needs of Children, based on the view that in certain respects the 2000 version did not adequately treat a child of unmarried parents equally with a child of married parents. Because equal treatment of nonmarital children was a hallmark of the 1973 Act, the objections caused the drafters of the 2000 version to reconsider certain sections of the Act. Through extended discussion and a meeting of representatives of all the entities involved, a determination was made that the objections had merit. As a result of this process, the amendments shown in this Act were presented