I read something about this online somewhere a few days ago, then the other night as I was sitting just flipping through the channels I saw it on a talk show..... The court decision just taken place earlier this month in San Diego.
A husband and his wife were trying to have a baby...The couple had begun in vitro fertilization at a fertility center .... however before it worked the man died (3 years ago) in a work related helicopter accident.
Although he left no will, the wife was appointed administrator of her husbands estate and deciding to continue to become pregnanat using her late husbands sperm, then petitioned the probate court for a preliminary distribution of an “asset of no financial value” but “of immense sentimental value to the widow.” His parents contested the preliminary distribution, claiming that it was against the intent of their deceased son. And that she should have no rights to it.
Some history on the couple...
They had been married for 10 years and children had not been discussed before marriage....The a few years into the marriage she decided to have a baby..He said no. ... she eventually told him that if they did not have a child she would divorce him, she wanted one that badly... He finally agreed, but they (for whatever reason) had to go the insemination route....
On the consent papers there is a space that asks in the event of your death would you want what's left of your frozen sperm to be donated or destroyed...He checked destroyed and legally signed the paper......................she also signed it.
So, in court they were left speculating whether he meant donated to someone else other than his wife because he was probably assuming they would already have a child by the time he died... or it didn't mean her since it was kept for her.
It was brought up that since she had emotionally blackmailed him into it maybe he had meant her also... since she no longer had the leverage of leaving him if he didn't give her a baby.
They also argued that She herself signed the consent contract paper without questioning it.
Using the fact that he was a deputy sheriff and placed his life in danger everyday, they said he must have taken that into consideration when signing the paper.
She used the fact that she was his wife and entitled to his sperm since she was legally his wife, the administrator of his estate and the one the sperm was intended to be used for.
That he had loved her enough and changed his mind and agreed to let her become pregnant then wanting to father her child. Also, If he had lived she would have eventually become pregnant from that very sperm.
And that neither of them ever considered him dying at such a young age.and he meant not to donate it to just anyone once he was gone. Thinking that it would be many years down the road and she would no longer be in need of it then....their use for it would be over by then and he didn't want anyone else with his child..
The court ruled against her......She lost her case....although she is appealing to the supreme court and his 'deposit' will be kept safe until the appeal decision is reached.
So, if you were gong to argue this case...Which side would you take and what would be your arguments??
Why?
Copy & paste to friend: (Click inside box; Ctrl + C to copy; Ctrl + V to paste)
|
|
read more blogs!
|
Blogs by casuallylooking:
|
|