My understanding is a previous court ruled that they could not be disposed of due to a paragraph in the contract. So that left just the two options.NYPost: "At the fertility clinic, the couple signed an agreement outlining what would happen if they decide to break up. The embryos could either be donated to another couple, or one partner would be permitted to use them — with the other’s permission, according to the ruling."
ABC News Phoenix: "In the agreement signed by both parties, there were three alternatives the couple could seek if they separated, divorced, or one of the them died: They could discard the embryos, donate the embryos to another couple, allow one partner to use the embryos with the other's permission."
I wonder why the discrepancy with the Post regarding the couple's fertility agreement?
ETA: My guess is that she would consent to having them destroyed once she had exhausted all legal challenges, but won't until then. The two parties are able to amend the original agreement, which from what I can tell they forgot to check the box that said in the event of divorce the embryos can be destroyed.Following an evidentiary hearing, the family court found that paragraph 10(H) of the Agreement foreclosed destruction of the embryos but did not resolve whether either Torres or Terrell should get the embryos or whether they should be donated.
We start with paragraph 10(H), which sets forth the parties’ joint dispositional choice in the event of divorce or dissolution of the relationship. The parties clearly did not choose to destroy the embryos because they did not check the box indicating that choice. See supra ¶ 5. That leaves two options, both of which are the subject of the checked box: “A court decree and/or settlement agreement will be presented to [FTC] directing use to achieve a pregnancy in one of us or donation to another couple for that purpose.”
I find this case to be fascinating. So many different viewpoints. Just from quick twitter readings some things people are discussing...
1. Rights of a father
2. Sympathy for a cancer patient.
3. Contract law
4. Pro-life viewpoint
5. Women's rights
Embryos have a far better success rate for surviving freezing.I guess maybe she should have saved a few eggs as opposed to only embryos.
Deleted since my assumption was incorrect.Do the embryos have to be donated to someone that will implant it? Can't she just "donate" it to someone that will throw them in the trash?
It requires contemporaneous approval from both parties. So i guess if she was able to find a person that he would agree to give them to and would then carry the baby and give back, sure?Couldn't she just donate the embryos to herself?
(or just donate them to a surrogate who would then give the baby to her?)
The contract did cover it. The woman didnt like what the contract said. It specifically states she needs his approval in the case of a divorce.Im trying to understand how the contract DIDN'T cover this. We went through IVF and the contract was a freakin' book that covered things that had less than a 0.0000001% chance of happening. This seems like a glaring omission from the contract.
Thanks....then I fail to see the issue here...what am I missing?The contract did cover it. The woman didnt like what the contract said. It specifically states she needs his approval in the case of a divorce.
Legally i agree with you. Obviously on the human interest side, hard not to feel bad for her. That shouldnt override the legal side of it though.Thanks....then I fail to see the issue here...what am I missing?