World

US woman loses battle to keep frozen embryos

Lee, 46, unsuccessfully argued that the embryos were her last chance at having biological children

Afp November 19, 2015

Lee, 46, unsuccessfully argued that the embryos were her last chance at having biological children . PHOTO: REUTERS

SAN FRANCISCO: A California judge on Wednesday ruled against a woman locked in a bitter dispute with her ex-husband to use frozen embryos over his objections, in a closely watched case.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo based her decision on an agreement Mimi Lee and Stephen Findley signed at a fertility clinic in 2010, when Lee was diagnosed with cancer.

The document stipulated that five embryos the couple decided to cryogenically freeze to preserve their chance to have children would be thawed and destroyed in the event of divorce.

Trial over fate of frozen embryos underway in San Francisco

"It is a disturbing consequence of modern biological technology that the fate of the nascent human life, which the embryos in this case represent, must be determined in a court by reference to cold legal principles," the judge wrote.

The case has been watched with interest in the United States as a test of the fate of frozen embryos in divorce cases.

Lee, a 46-year-old pianist and part-time anesthesiologist, unsuccessfully argued that the embryos were her last chance at having biological children because she was left infertile following treatment for breast cancer.

Her ex-husband, an investment executive, however insisted that the consent agreement the couple signed was clear and legally binding.

The couple have been embroiled in a bitter legal battle over the embryos since their divorce in 2013. The judge's ruling can be appealed.

Attorneys representing Lee and Findley could not be immediately reached for comment.

COMMENTS (2)

tt | 9 years ago | Reply Could he though? Is there a legal precedent that states so? Normally your child support obligations are not something that you can "give up," not in a private agreement. Kind of like there can be no agreement defense in a statutory rape case. Even if the woman lies about being on birth control, the daddy-to-be is on the hook. The state doesn't want to pay to enforce private agreements. So unless perhaps the mother somehow legally adopts the children and severs that link (but how can she adopt embryos?!) she could sue him for child support at any time. But regardless, to deprive her of ability to have children, especially after cancer, is beyond cruel. Saddest verdict ever.

Kerry Cox | 9 years ago | Reply Why doesn't the divorced couple re-negotiate? If he gives up his parental rights, he will have no financial obligations to the children. She'll get to have her baby or babies; the children don't get killed and the father has no legal obligations. Everybody wins--even the judge who makes that very humane decision. Remember King Solomon.

Replying to X