Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Cancer patient Ruby Torres must donate embryos fertilized by her ex-husband, court rules


Recommended Posts

I support the right of the father to have a say in what happens to his offspring.

However, the mother should not be forced to donate the embryos to anyone. If the father can prevent the embryo from being implanted into Person X, then the mother should be given an equal right to prevent the embryo from being implanted into Person Y or anyone else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Lutherman2112 said:

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?

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.  

Quote

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.

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. 

Quote

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.”

 

Edited by parasaurolophus
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

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

 

 

 

Contract law was my first thought. 

 

:gavel: case dismissed 

 

 

 

  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Couldn't she just donate the embryos to herself?

(or just donate them to a surrogate who would then give the baby to her?)

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? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an applicable AZ statute as referenced in footnote 1. That law came out after this case began so it doesn't apply retroactively, but it's worth a read to see how Arizona resolves the issue. 

Since that statute wasn't enacted at the time this situation arose, the court appears to have decided this matter totally on the merits of the contract issue. And bad contract = "bad" ruling. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, The Commish said:

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.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

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. 

Thanks....then I fail to see the issue here...what am I missing?  :mellow: 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...