- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
AZ cancer survivor ordered by court to donate embryos
Posted on 1/26/20 at 9:51 am
Posted on 1/26/20 at 9:51 am
LINK
Interesting case I kinda come down on both sides of a little. Woman had her eggs fertilized in 2014 after getting a cancer diagnosis, treatment would sterilize her. They boyfriend at the time (later husband and then ex husband) stipulated in the agreement with the clinic that both of them would require consent to be implanted. The woman is now seeking to get the embryos implanted, the now ex-husband won't agree because he would be held responsible for child support. AZ supreme Court sides with husband as a matter of simple contract law and the woman must donate the embryos. A better resolution of this seems pretty obvious, sign a new agreement that the woman can implant the embryos and the man is not financially responsible, but I'm sure there is some legal explanation (or the woman is just trying to stick it to the ex, in which case this is the 100% correct ruling). Thoughts?
Interesting case I kinda come down on both sides of a little. Woman had her eggs fertilized in 2014 after getting a cancer diagnosis, treatment would sterilize her. They boyfriend at the time (later husband and then ex husband) stipulated in the agreement with the clinic that both of them would require consent to be implanted. The woman is now seeking to get the embryos implanted, the now ex-husband won't agree because he would be held responsible for child support. AZ supreme Court sides with husband as a matter of simple contract law and the woman must donate the embryos. A better resolution of this seems pretty obvious, sign a new agreement that the woman can implant the embryos and the man is not financially responsible, but I'm sure there is some legal explanation (or the woman is just trying to stick it to the ex, in which case this is the 100% correct ruling). Thoughts?
This post was edited on 1/26/20 at 9:55 am
12
Posted on 1/26/20 at 9:53 am to narddogg81
Tough one, but the one outcome I wouldn’t support is him being financially responsible.
Even that one is not set in stone.
Even that one is not set in stone.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 9:59 am to narddogg81
I have ZERO sympathy for the woman. She freely entered into an agreement that required her husband's consent before implanting. Now she wants that agreement nullified, knowing full well her ex will be financially responsible. Frick her.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 9:59 am to narddogg81
Here’s the problem though, that’s still his kid whether he is financially responsible or not. I don’t think it would be so easy to walk away from that.
I agree this is a very gray argument. But she shouldn’t have sole control over the embryos while he is still alive.
ETA: No screw that, even after he is dead she shouldn’t be able to implant. His family still has rights to have those embryos not implanted.
I agree this is a very gray argument. But she shouldn’t have sole control over the embryos while he is still alive.
ETA: No screw that, even after he is dead she shouldn’t be able to implant. His family still has rights to have those embryos not implanted.
This post was edited on 1/26/20 at 10:01 am
Posted on 1/26/20 at 10:01 am to narddogg81
Even if not held financially responsible, the guy likely would be emotionally invested knowing that he is the father.
If the woman was crazy and they got divorced, and then wanted to implant the embryos, I wouldn't want children with that woman.
If the guy gives permission and the wife wants, fine. But think of it another way.
If the guy remarried and the new wife couldn't have children, do you think he should be able to have the embryos implanted if the woman didn't want them to used them and instead wanted them destroyed?
If the woman was crazy and they got divorced, and then wanted to implant the embryos, I wouldn't want children with that woman.
If the guy gives permission and the wife wants, fine. But think of it another way.
If the guy remarried and the new wife couldn't have children, do you think he should be able to have the embryos implanted if the woman didn't want them to used them and instead wanted them destroyed?
Posted on 1/26/20 at 10:02 am to Ag Zwin
Kind of a tough one. If the embryos are donated and you don't know to who or where, you can sort of it put out of your mind that you have a kid of your own running around out there, but to the ex-wife, that's pretty brutal from the man's side because while you may despise the wife, there's going to be some part of you that either (a) wants to a part of his/her life in some way or (b) you're going to feel sortof like a real shite stain for staying completely out of his/her life.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 10:05 am to narddogg81
I am not aware of any state which allows the parties to contract themselves out of a child support obligation.
The legal theory is that the state has a an interest in “the best interest of the child” which overrides the contractual rights of the parties.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
The legal theory is that the state has a an interest in “the best interest of the child” which overrides the contractual rights of the parties.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 10:14 am to narddogg81
quote:
A better resolution of this seems pretty obvious, sign a new agreement that the woman can implant the embryos and the man is not financially responsible, but I'm sure there is some legal explanation (or the woman is just trying to stick it to the ex, in which case this is the 100% correct ruling).
You can't unilaterally sign away custodial rights (child support) it must be thru a court order.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 10:19 am to narddogg81
Give her King Solomon's solution: She gets half of each embryo.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 10:22 am to SEC. 593
If the parties REALLY wanted it, they could reach a mediated settlement agreement which provided for termination of the father’s rights AND obligations, subject to Court approval and a signed Order of Termination.
The fact that they did not sign such an agreement rather than continuing this litigation tells me that the man thinks that the woman is BSC and DOES NOT want her raising his child, regardless of whether he would have any obligations TO that child.
The fact that they did not sign such an agreement rather than continuing this litigation tells me that the man thinks that the woman is BSC and DOES NOT want her raising his child, regardless of whether he would have any obligations TO that child.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 10:24 am to AggieHank86
quote:
I am not aware of any state which allows the parties to contract themselves out of a child support obligation.
The legal theory is that the state has a an interest in “the best interest of the child” which overrides the contractual rights of the parties.
Don’t shoot the messenger.
This was my suspicion.
Dads best course of action is to refuse implantation at all costs. Sounds like he is on top of it.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 10:27 am to AggieHank86
quote:
subject to Court approval and a signed Order of Termination
There's your problem.
The State has a separate interest in disallowing the termination of financial responsibility. They have a duty to protect the public fisc from the drain of public monies to single mothers. That's why DSS brings paternity suits all the time.
I am not saying they shouldn't be able to do this, but the State will not and cannot allow it.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 10:29 am to narddogg81
As bad as men get it stuck to them in divorce proceedings, I have no sympathy for her.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 10:39 am to AggieHank86
I tend to agree that financially obligated or not this man simply doesn't want her raising his kids. And since she contractually obligated herself to require his consent she can pound sand
Posted on 1/26/20 at 10:43 am to narddogg81
quote:
A better resolution of this seems pretty obvious, sign a new agreement that the woman can implant the embryos and the man is not financially responsible, but I'm sure there is some legal explanation (or the woman is just trying to stick it to the ex, in which case this is the 100% correct ruling). Thoughts?
She could still go after child support if she wanted.....the state would never agree to let the so called father off based on a signed agreement. I don’t blame him, doesn’t he have a right to choose ?
Posted on 1/26/20 at 11:18 am to narddogg81
I saw this...all the reports fail to address or ask, was a compromise letting the ex off the financial hook proposed? Or, regardless of contract law would state law override and put him back on the hook if the mother couldn’t provide? There has to be more to this story, along these lines. Terrible reporting so far.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 12:42 pm to cwill
quote:
saw this...all the reports fail to address or ask, was a compromise letting the ex off the financial hook proposed
Two things
One. I actually doubt one can even legally enter and do such a compromise.
Two. I kind of think he just doesn't want her to have his kids at all. Financially obligated or not.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 1:33 pm to narddogg81
So it’s in theory an inverted abortion? I’d be really interested to see where pro-abortion advocates stand in this case.
Posted on 1/26/20 at 1:42 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
I have ZERO sympathy for the woman. She freely entered into an agreement that required her husband's consent before implanting. Now she wants that agreement nullified, knowing full well her ex will be financially responsible. Frick her.
This
Posted on 1/26/20 at 1:46 pm to AggieHank86
quote:The State is concerned about post birth responsibilities.
I am not aware of any state which allows the parties to contract themselves out of a child support obligation.
The contract between the man and wife refers to pre-implant. Since I have no medical knowledge about this sort of thing, If possible the woman should find someone to donate another embryo that was not fertilized by her ex-husband.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News