Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Who owns the embryos?
Casualties of embryonic legal warfare
Human embryo, 8–9 weeks
Post Title: The Fate of Frozen Embryos at Divorce
Post Date: December 2, 2015
As times change and technology evolves, new issues are ever-present in divorce law. And, although deep emotions lie at the center of almost every divorce, the courts, in making their decisions, look at the laws and don’t take emotions into account.
When Dr. Mimi C. Lee found out that she had breast cancer just before her marriage to Stephen Findley in 2010, the couple decided to create embryos and have them frozen, so as to preserve what might be her only chance to have biological children. Before the couple went to create the embryos, they signed a contract with the clinic. The contract stated that the embryos would be destroyed if they divorced.
Unfortunately, a mere three years later the couple separated. Their divorce was finalized in early 2015. Later, a judge had to decide the fate of their frozen embryos. Dr. Lee wanted to keep the embryos, as they still may have represented her last chance to have biological children. Mr. Findley wanted the embryos destroyed, as he did not want the potential to be the father of a child with his now ex-wife after a less-than-pleasant divorce from the woman. He asked that the court enforce the agreement they entered into at the time the embryos were created.
Dr. Lee argued that she had a right to procreate and also argued that she would agree to waive child-support payments for any children created from the embryos. She further argued that she had a right to change the agreement that was entered into at the time the embryos were created.
The judge — who issued a tentative ruling in this case on Wednesday, November 18 — disagreed. The judge recognized that although Dr. Lee certainly does have a right to procreate, she doesn’t have the right to do so with the unwilling Mr. Findley. Further, Dr. Lee’s claims that she would waive child-support were meaningless, as such agreements cannot be entered into in California. The judge found that the parties had to abide by the prior agreement, meaning that the embryos had to be destroyed as a result of the parties’ divorce.
It is certainly easy to sympathize with Dr. Lee, as cancer may have reduced her ability to have children on her own. The judge had to rule on a deeply personal matter in this couple’s lives, which admittedly may cause a greater impact in Dr. Lee’s life than it did in her now-ex-husband’s life, as he is now able to move on and can procreate if he so chooses. However, it makes sense that the court cannot force this man, who does not want to become a father with his ex-spouse, to become a father anyway.
Interestingly, judges in other states have ruled differently on the same issue, and have instead taken the woman’s side. This happened several years ago in Pennsylvania, where a court awarded frozen embryos to a woman with breast cancer over her ex-husband’s objections. And a court in Illinois awarded frozen embryos to an infertile woman against her ex-boyfriend’s objections.
The difference is the law in California, which requires couples to decide up-front what happens to the embryos that they create in the event of separation or divorce. This is the first time a California court has made a ruling on this issue. The judge, in her written decision, had the following to say:
“Decisions about family and children often are difficult, and can be wrenching when they become disputes.
“The policy best suited to ensuring that these disputes are resolved in a clear-eyed manner…is to give effect to the intentions of the parties at the time of the decision at issue.
“It is a disturbing consequence of modern biological technology that the fate of nascent human life, which the embryos in this case represent, must be determined in a court by reference to cold legal principles.”
Title: San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog | Author: Nancy J. Bickford, APC | From: Carmel Valley | Blogging since: 2011
Here's something you might be interested in.
Who owns the embryos?
Casualties of embryonic legal warfare
Who owns the embryos?
Casualties of embryonic legal warfare
Human embryo, 8–9 weeks
Post Title: The Fate of Frozen Embryos at Divorce
Post Date: December 2, 2015
As times change and technology evolves, new issues are ever-present in divorce law. And, although deep emotions lie at the center of almost every divorce, the courts, in making their decisions, look at the laws and don’t take emotions into account.
When Dr. Mimi C. Lee found out that she had breast cancer just before her marriage to Stephen Findley in 2010, the couple decided to create embryos and have them frozen, so as to preserve what might be her only chance to have biological children. Before the couple went to create the embryos, they signed a contract with the clinic. The contract stated that the embryos would be destroyed if they divorced.
Unfortunately, a mere three years later the couple separated. Their divorce was finalized in early 2015. Later, a judge had to decide the fate of their frozen embryos. Dr. Lee wanted to keep the embryos, as they still may have represented her last chance to have biological children. Mr. Findley wanted the embryos destroyed, as he did not want the potential to be the father of a child with his now ex-wife after a less-than-pleasant divorce from the woman. He asked that the court enforce the agreement they entered into at the time the embryos were created.
Dr. Lee argued that she had a right to procreate and also argued that she would agree to waive child-support payments for any children created from the embryos. She further argued that she had a right to change the agreement that was entered into at the time the embryos were created.
The judge — who issued a tentative ruling in this case on Wednesday, November 18 — disagreed. The judge recognized that although Dr. Lee certainly does have a right to procreate, she doesn’t have the right to do so with the unwilling Mr. Findley. Further, Dr. Lee’s claims that she would waive child-support were meaningless, as such agreements cannot be entered into in California. The judge found that the parties had to abide by the prior agreement, meaning that the embryos had to be destroyed as a result of the parties’ divorce.
It is certainly easy to sympathize with Dr. Lee, as cancer may have reduced her ability to have children on her own. The judge had to rule on a deeply personal matter in this couple’s lives, which admittedly may cause a greater impact in Dr. Lee’s life than it did in her now-ex-husband’s life, as he is now able to move on and can procreate if he so chooses. However, it makes sense that the court cannot force this man, who does not want to become a father with his ex-spouse, to become a father anyway.
Interestingly, judges in other states have ruled differently on the same issue, and have instead taken the woman’s side. This happened several years ago in Pennsylvania, where a court awarded frozen embryos to a woman with breast cancer over her ex-husband’s objections. And a court in Illinois awarded frozen embryos to an infertile woman against her ex-boyfriend’s objections.
The difference is the law in California, which requires couples to decide up-front what happens to the embryos that they create in the event of separation or divorce. This is the first time a California court has made a ruling on this issue. The judge, in her written decision, had the following to say:
“Decisions about family and children often are difficult, and can be wrenching when they become disputes.
“The policy best suited to ensuring that these disputes are resolved in a clear-eyed manner…is to give effect to the intentions of the parties at the time of the decision at issue.
“It is a disturbing consequence of modern biological technology that the fate of nascent human life, which the embryos in this case represent, must be determined in a court by reference to cold legal principles.”
Title: San Diego Divorce Attorneys Blog | Author: Nancy J. Bickford, APC | From: Carmel Valley | Blogging since: 2011
Comments