SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A court battle between a divorced couple over the future of their frozen embryos began Monday with an attorney for the former husband accusing the woman of using the dispute to get money.
Dr. Mimi Lee, 46, a pianist and part-time anesthesiologist, married Stephen Findley, a wealthy executive, five years ago. Shortly before the wedding, Lee learned she had breast cancer.
Unsure whether the disease would make it impossible for her to have children, the couple went to a fertility center, where Lee's eggs and Findley's sperm created five embryos, now frozen.
Findley filed for divorce two years ago and wants the embryos destroyed. Lee, now infertile, wants to implant the embryos into a surrogate and have a baby. Without the embryos, she will never have a child who shares her genes.
If the embryos are implanted and carry to term, the ex-husband becomes a father without consent. If the embryos are destroyed, the ex-wife is denied the deep need to procreate. The embryos themselves have issues either way. Modern biomedical ethics are complex.
Original Submission
(Score: 1, Redundant) by tibman on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:34PM
Sounds like consent was already given. That deed is done. This is like a pregnancy on pause and the now ex-father wants to have them aborted. If ownership wasn't explicitly agreed on then they each get half of the fertilized embryos. IMO of course : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 4, Informative) by pinchy on Wednesday July 15 2015, @09:57PM
and
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:16PM
Well then obviously the solution is for Lee to murder Findley.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by scruffybeard on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:18AM
But Whittier Law School’s Daar said that waiver “has no legal meaning.”
I agree 100%. Seeing how she has already signed an agreement to destroy the embryos in the case of a divorce, why should anyone believe her when she says she would release him from child support.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:44AM
Beyond that, there has been a case where a woman went on public assistance and the state sued the sperm donor against the wishes of the mother and of the signed agreement that he would have no paternal rights of responsibilities.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by choose another one on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:11AM
Easy solution to the child support issue is for her to setup a court controlled trust fund that will pay her support, in the event that any claim is made against the father, the fund goes to him, so he can pay support from it. If she hasn't got the money up front then the fund could be setup by insuring her income and her life in some way, I guess.
If she doesn't have the money and can't get life/health/income insurance (she has already had cancer...) then that should be a big clue to her that she shouldn't be doing this.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:32AM
So she agreed to destroy the embryos, but now has a lawyer trying to get her out of that agreement.
Now afterwords, she is offering to agree to waive child support. Would you trust this second offer?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @10:15PM
Findley is just being a dick. He is almost guaranteed that he will not have to pay child support, even without his ex-wife's consent. For starters, even if they were still together, they probably would have to adopt their own child. (Depending on the jurisdiction, of course) And if they were not found fit, the surrogate could end up with the child. With Findley out of the picture, Lee would adopt her own child by herself, and since she adopted while she was single, Findley is off the hook.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2015, @11:40AM
Now IANAL, but you said "even if they were still together, they probably would have to adopt their own child. (Depending on the jurisdiction, of course)" as she would be using a surrogate, however they key words are "Depending on the jurisdiction". Do you not think as Lee so desperately wants to have her own child she might ensure the surrogacy happens in a jurisdiction where that won't be an issue for her?
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2015, @10:20PM
If ownership wasn't explicitly agreed on then they each get half of the fertilized embryos.
That should be "half of each embryo", Solomon!
(Score: 3, Funny) by davester666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @03:44AM
Hey, yeah. Just take out the sperm!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:48PM
"Here's your 23 chromosomes (not pairs), have fun with it"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 18 2015, @11:45AM
If that were possible, that would be a good solution, then she could get them fertilised by someone else. As they signed a contract which dealt with the contingency of divorce, I'm wondering why she didn't also have some unfertilised eggs frozen.
(Score: 3, Informative) by penguinoid on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:08PM
Sounds like consent was already given. That deed is done.
Yes, if she didn't want the embryos destroyed in case of divorce, she shouldn't have consented to exactly that. That's the problem with people who delude themselves into thinking that nothing bad will ever happen to them, optimists get divorced too. So now she can't have children and has consented to have her last embryos destroyed, but wants to change her mind.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:33PM
> So now she can't have children
She's 46 !!!!!
Most women can't have (statistically healthy) children at 46. She's got not grounds for pleading that it's a terrible unforseen ordeal.
She'd be retired before her kids go to college, too. just because you could, doesn't mean that you should...
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:42AM
How this bears any relevance? Anthony Quinn fathered his last child at the age of 81, 5 years before his death [wikipedia.org].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Thursday July 16 2015, @06:27AM
Anthony Quinn had money. This woman has none or will have none left after paying the attorney fee. Then she will demand maintenance and alimony and there is no legal precedent to deny that. It really is the problem with the law that maintains that a woman must be paid in all circumstances and a man must be made to pay in all circumstances.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:14AM
There are more risks associated with older mothers, but modern medicine can manage most of those. But there has been a lot of research lately that says older parents make better parents [livescience.com]. The gist of it is that older parents are more emotionally mature and have more, relevant life experience to guide their kids.
That feels right to me. My wife and I had our first in our late 30's. I know I wouldn't have been emotionally ready before then. Had I had kids in my 20's, I'd be dealing with some messed up children now because I would have made lots of rookie mistakes. And that's not terribly incongruent with what my parents' generation would say about having kids (they were all married by their early 20's), in that they'd have to screw up the first couple of kids before they figured out what they were doing.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Thursday July 16 2015, @09:00AM
We're all rookies with kids, even having had three I don't think I'm not - every kid is different, the more you think you've learned from the others the more likely you are to get stuff 'wrong' through dogmatic insistence in following what worked for older siblings. If you've had nine kids your still a rookie with the tenth.
I am 46 now, had kids early 30's and if I have any regret, it's not doing it earlier. Starting out with another one now would be scary. By school age you're going to be 50s and probably mistaken for grandparents at school gate. By time they are 10 and wanting to do exciting active things you are going to be acting like grandparents, while the actual grandparents are probably in a care home, or dead.
Having kids is what makes you mature, younger parents just have to learn it a lot faster - IMO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @04:31PM
Having kids is what makes you mature
"mature" is a subjective term in this case. And I'd say having kids is far from the only thing that makes you "mature". Not everyone wants children, and they are not any worse than you because of it.
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:49AM
She's 46 !!!!!
Most women can't have (statistically healthy) children at 46. She's got not grounds for pleading that it's a terrible unforseen ordeal.
It wasn't unforeseen -- she got frozen embryos for exactly that eventuality. What she didn't foresee was that she'd divorce her fiance before having children, so didn't mind checking the box that says "sure, destroy the embryos in case of divorce, that'll never happen anyways."
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:51PM
Unforeseen? If she can't foresee even that will she be a good parent?
With 7+ billion on this planet already are we really desperate for more children to be born? Especially from parents like her?
Yes I know there are plenty of worse parents around, but the point is will she be such a great parent with such great genes that its worth allowing the contract to be broken for her? So far the evidence is no.
(Score: 1) by ese002 on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:40AM
Sounds like consent was already given. That deed is done.
Yes, if she didn't want the embryos destroyed in case of divorce, she shouldn't have consented to exactly that. That's the problem with people who delude themselves into thinking that nothing bad will ever happen to them, optimists get divorced too. So now she can't have children and has consented to have her last embryos destroyed, but wants to change her mind.
While I mostly agree with you, it seems like a very big issue to handled by checking a box and initialing.
TFA:
Findley, the first witness, testified that both he and Lee had read the consent agreements before signing. She checked a box that said the embryos would be destroyed if they divorced, and both initialed the page, he said.
(Score: 3, Funny) by fleg on Thursday July 16 2015, @02:29AM
>seems like a very big issue to handled by checking a box and initialing.
perhaps hand carving it in stone?