« To say hello and goodbye | Main | Whip smart »
09/26/2009
Help an infertile out. Uh, but not like Carolyn Savage did.
Carolyn Savage had a C-section Thursday. The baby, a healthy boy, was immediately given to his genetic parents, Paul and Shannon Morrell. The clinic responsible for the mix-up has not yet been named. Maybe they're waiting till the clinic has a chance to get a new sign painted. I think the Center for Holy Cats Did We Screw Up Reproductive Medicine has a lovely ring to it, don't you? Shorter and easier to remember than the Institute for The Savages and Morrells Own Every Catheter, Petri Dish, Pointy-Needled Thingamajig That They Use to Poke Ovaries, and Last Little Glob of Ultrasound Gel Oh And Also If We Need Mention It Our Collective Corporate Asssssses, LLC.
I loved your comments on my previous post about this. Loved them for your genuine compassion, for how readily you saw the complexities of the situation. And, I'll admit, felt chagrined by them, because they confirmed my suspicion that about 99% of my readers are better people than I am. (I humbly thank the other 1% of you miserable bastards. Without you, I'm nothing.) Some of you said that if you'd already decided a pregnancy was worth the risk for your own offspring, it would also be worth it for someone else's. Some of you pointed out that you'd know the other couple were infertile, too, and would therefore feel that much more compelled to nurture an embryo that had certainly been hard to come by. I really admire those convictions, and wish I shared them. That I can't makes me feel sort of...small.
But then I think of Savage's medical history. (I bet when the Morrells learned about it they sat there for a minute and thought, Fuuuuuck.) I think of my own experience with HELLP and a preterm birth. And I try to put myself in the Morrells' place. Would I expect such a person, whose health could well be jeopardized by my embryo, to take that chance?
My answer is an unqualified no, and I'm certain the Morrells' was, too. Which makes me admire both families that much more.
Hey, speaking of embryos in legal limbo, I have a favor to ask on behalf of a friend. She writes:
In August 2007, we did a cycle in which 4 extra embryos were frozen as blasts. We signed a consent that said that in the event of a divorce, the embryos would go to whoever was awarded them pursuant to a settlement agreement or divorce decree.
In November 2007, we started an FET, but 3 days before transfer, my husband suddenly decided that he didn’t want to cycle then, and threatened to divorce me if I continued the cycle, agreeing that we would continue at a better time for him. I stopped the cycle.
In December 2007, he announced that he wanted a divorce and moved out six days later. Originally, he agreed that he would give me the embryos, but afterwards decided that he didn’t want to be a father or be liable for child support so he wants them destroyed. [Apparently child support can't be waived before a child's birth, so even if my friend stipulates that he'd be off the hook, it doesn't carry any legal weight.] I want them.
Do any of you nice people have experience with the disposition of embryos upon divorce? Because there's not much legal precedent in this area, she's understandably anxious and could use some perspective. Please share as much detail as you can, and feel free to comment anonymously. Any words of wisdom for my friend?
Comments (67)
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
In regards to your friend, I wish I had information on legal precedent in this matter, but all I can say is I wish her the best of luck in keeping her embies. Perhaps she can speak to a legal advocate at N.O.W. or get a referral through a women's organization in her area, such as the National Chapter of Planned Parenthood. If she has a good relationship with her fertility Dr., maybe he/she can confidentially refer a lawyer who deals with women's rights. I wish I could help.
I guess I'd look up legal precedent in her state, and see who has filed a claim or won a suit in her state (it is often available on public record). Then I would investigate who the plaintiff's law firm was, and call them for information/referral.
Fingers Crossed,
Michele
http://romancingthestone.wordpress.com
I have absolutely no experience with this, but my heart goes out to your friend. It is certainly a difficult situation. I didn't see what state they were from (if you stated it) so I imagine it makes a bit of difference. I would recommend her to a good family law attorney.
Wishing her the best.
My brother clerked for a family court judge and a case came up about this over the summer. It was a similar situation but the difference was that the agreement they signed with the fertility clinic said that upon divorce, the embryos would be destroyed. The wife said that she signed the agreement under mental duress therefore making it void.
Basically, there was no evidence to support that so the judge ruled in favor of the husband, who wanted to have them destroyed, as the original agreement stated.
What a heart breaking situation to find oneself in. In my opinion, if someone wants to give an embryo a chance at life, then who the heck is a judge or a jury to say no? But, alas, that is not the law.
Here's my two-second take, not knowing the substantive law or which state this involves, and relying heavily upon the rarely formally recognized legal doctrine of "no takesies-backsies":
If the contract they signed before they created the embryos stated that whoever wants them gets them, then I think she gets them. If the contract itself didn't mention destruction, then I don't think he gets to raise that now.
His whole "I don't want to be a dad or pay child support" argument comes, I think, too late. If you took IVF out of the equation, and said that she was pregnant but they were divorcing, he wouldn't have any say in the matter. I think that once he participated in the act of creating the embryos, he was obligated as a father to them.
There are good lawyers out there who specialize in this particular area of family law, and I would encourage your friend to seek one of them out and get their help. Best of luck to her.
No legal advice but just wanted to say that I'm thinking of her and I hope everything works out well. And I'm with Jen - the embryos are there, it should be too late for him to make a unilateral decision that they shouldn't be brought to term.
If this is someone from the US, so much can change depending on which state and whether contract or family law covers any of it. It might help if you knew the State?
In Canada, Reproductive Tech laws have decided that frozen gametes of every kind are neither person nor property, "sui generis" which allows for discussions of custody and disposition without causing legal problems re.abortion. Partially because of this law, most contracts for many years have included clauses on embryo disposition in case of divorce or death. Could it be challenged? Who knows?
But after emailing a family lawyer friend just now, he says that most judges are loathe to order embryos destroyed unless both spouses agree, and they don't want to order that embryos can be awarded to someone who will use them unless the judge is assured that the spouses could co-parent in some capacity without tearing each other and any potential child apart. Negotiation is HIGHLY encouraged.
Because regardless of what you define an embryo as, it just might become a person, and the family court judges here have seen far too many warring couples destroy the already living child they are fighting for.
The advice of my friend? If this woman thinks that she and this man could negotiate and co-parent and deal with each other for the next twenty years, then it might be worth trying to do. Realistically, if he has to pay support, he would likely want visitation. Can she deal with that? Could he?
Sadly, if it's as bad a divorce as it sounds, then a court case could cost a fortune, and she will be left broke and unable to support a child, or unable to pay for more treatment. He would take the case as far as he could to avoid future child support. Years of expensive litigation while her biological clock ticks, and then she loses? The worst outcome.... She might be better off agreeing to destroy the embryos and starting over with some donor sperm or a new partner. She could negotiate a huge settlement in exchange for agreeing to do that to pay for her future treatment.
She may be too pro-life to agree to this, or too attached to the embryos, but until they are in her uterus, he has to agree, and if this continues, the only people left happy in the end will be the lawyers. And their bankers.
I'm so sorry to be so blunt, but it's already 2009 and time is ticking. I doubt he will bend at all after two years. This is so sad, I feel awful for her.
Julie, can you let us know what happens at some point? And wish her well.
No, please don't be feeling small. It is all well and good for those of us who have had easy pregnancies to think that we could and we would do it. Because we have not been through the horror that you have, and we can't even begin to imagine the ramifications of such a decision.
So, no. No smallness please. I have been a reader here long enough to know that it is not possible, by any stretch of the imagination, that 99% of your readers are better people. I mean, think of all those trolls?
"I think that once he participated in the act of creating the embryos, he was obligated as a father to them. "
This strikes me as a rather dangerous line of thinking. Under this theory, wouldn't a woman be obligated to carry any embryos she participated in creating?
There was a story in the news not long ago about a woman in a similar situation, possibly a little worse since the embryos in question were her last chance at ovulation. The judge ruled that because the father did not want them, she could not essentially force fatherhood on him.
I wonder if there is a way to do an end run around him, and to allow the embryos to be donated--to someone who would essentially be a surrogate for the mother.
It's a little hard for me to understand the man's motivations here--does he see this as a way to hurt her, would he be opening to bargaining the embryos for other marital assets, does he just enjoy warfare, or does he just really think she would not be a good mother for his children.
I think the woman is probably better off just starting over with donor sperm. Just as anyone can argue her attachment to her eggs used, I can argue that maybe she doesn't want to be connected to the sperm that were involved. Just sayin', it cuts both ways.
Speaking strictly for myself, I would consider those eggs ruined and lost by the sperm of somebody who was treating me so badly, and I would probably prefer them to be destroyed so as to have him out as completely out of my life as possible. But I understand that not everybody feels as I do.
''(I humbly thank the other 1% of you miserable bastards. Without you, I'm nothing.)''
And you ARE WELCOME!!!
I have no advice for your friend but much sympathy. What an assbag she is ridding herself of but I hope it's not at the cost of having children. Jaysus.
I'm always around to be a selfish dick when the need arises. Happy to be of service.
I think Celeste may be referring to the UK case on this, which was incredibly sad but not sure it would constitute legal precedent for the US. It went to the European Court, who ruled that the embryos could not be used without the father's consent, and they were destroyed. And it was even sadder because the woman had had her ovaries removed due to cancer, so that was it for her chances at having a biologically related baby. I hope this case has a better outcome for all involved.
Anyone interested in the Uk case can see an OK summary here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evans_v._the_United_Kingdom . Importantly for that case English law was absolutely clear that both parties had to consent and the woman's right to family life could not override that. If the underlying legislation had been different the outcome could have changed so I'm not sure it is much help as a precedent.
In regard to the Savages and Morrells, if I were the Savages, I would demand genetic testing on the baby before I allowed it to be turned over. Who's to say that they didn't mislabel the Morrell's stuff and it's actually the Savage's baby? (I'm sure they've covered all the bases, but I'm just proposing this.)
I don't know much about the situation with your friend, but you'd think they could sign some papers allowing the father to relinquish his paternal rights, therefore making him much like a sperm donor.
"I think that once he participated in the act of creating the embryos, he was obligated as a father to them. "
I'm with Sleeky here. What if the roles were reversed and SHE wanted to destroy them and they were HIS last chance to have biological children (men also suffer from cancer, you know)? Would you require her to carry them? I highly doubt it.
Look, this sucks all around. The law provides for not forcing women to become mothers, but it certainly doesn't have the same qualms (justified or not) about forcing men to become fathers. If she did carry the embryos to term, he WILL be required to pay child support (as it is the right of the child, not the right of the custodial parent) and she will be required, barring any ruling of unfitness, to give him visitation. Does she really want to have a baby with someone she obviously doesn't love anymore, or even like very much? He's going to be tied to her for 18 years or more if she does this. She needs to think about that.
i'm with lisa and sleeky. If things were reversed and he wanted to try for bio babies and she did not, even if she were not required to carry the embryos, imagine if he had the right to have someone else carry them if she didn't want to have babies with him anymore? I think for him NOT to be able to say no at this point, before they are transferred into a uterus, bolsters the whole "embryos are people,too" side of the choice/anti choice argument. it's messed up. And yeah, I don't see how she and he can agree to give up any resulting child's right to support from him. I think if she gets the judge to agree to give her the embryos over his objections, then it is going to set a very dangerous precedent for issues of choice for women everywhere.
Reading these last two posts has made me chew my lip in thought a fair bit. I can't help but think that King Solomon would have a hard time impressing the punters with his fabled judgements in 2009. Stuff has gotten HARD.
This is an impossible situation, and I have so much sympathy for your friend. I'm sure she already considers those embryos her babies, and has hopes, plans and dreams for them. The thought of destroying them must kill her. I can only imagine.
On the other hand, this ex of hers is being such a huge a-hole, I cant imagine why she'd want children with him anymore. Even if she lets him off the hook, he's there, and if the FET worked out, that/those poor child(ren) would have to deal with him as well.
What an awful situation to be in. My heart goes out to her.
Wow. Both these cases are so hard. I couldn't imagine going through what the Savages just went through. I don't know if I could do it. Then again, in the same situation I don't know how I couldn't do it. Don't feel small, you've been through so much to get your babies.
As for your friend, it sounds like their agreement was that whoever wants them gets them, but I think a drawn out court case could make it very difficult for her to afford more treatments even if she won. I don't know what the right answer is. I'm sorry her ex is being such a jerk.
I think Lisa made a good point that child support is something to which the child is entitled, not the custodial parent, and in that sense, it doesn't exactly seem like hers to relinquish. On the one hand, I don't think he should have to become a custodial parent if he doesn't want a child. On the other hand, the fact that they had to do IVF at all (assuming that she is infertile, not him), it seems cruel to make her go through another stimulation and retrieval to get embryos when she already has some frozen ones. My last thought is this: even if she tries to win this in court, in addition to agreeing with whatever everyone else has said about not wanting to co-parent with this man...even if she wins, he could (and probably would) appeal!!! And then where does it leave her? I would imagine that during an appeal, the embryos still belong to nobody, it could take YEARS, and no matter if she wins or loses, by that point she would be that much older which will make all her reproductive choices and possibilities narrower and more difficult. If she has the means, I would start over with a donor. That doesn't mean she should not continue to try to be awarded the existing embryos, but at least get the ball rolling with a new process, so that no matter what happens w/ the divorce proceedings, if she wants her own biological children, her dreams for that don't get lost or compromised in the process.
Most of the legal precedent that I read in law school (still in it) indicates that you cannot make someone a parent. Most courts have allowed the embryos to be destroyed in order to avoid making someone a parent against their will.
these are some thoughtful comments. I had not reversed the situation in my head, but once I did, I quickly got onto the page that no one gets the embryos. however, the UK case seems different in that the woman had no further ability to make an embryo - I don't know, that one does seem different somehow.
And Julie, I don't think I commented but I too am in the 1%. Maybe its my age (44), complications (which pale in comparison to yours) but there is no way I would be able to make the decision to continue a pregnancy in that case. I think since its "all good" now -- its easier to say she/they did the right thing...but what if she had....well, died? then what would us monday morning quarterbacks be saying?
Your friend should consult a lawyer. Period.
She needs a lawyer to help her protect her interests in what will be contentious divorce--not just her interest in the embryos, but the equity in a house, retirement accounts, bank accounts and property acquired during the Marriage.
Many courts will defer to the agreement signed when the embryos were frozen. In this case, the agreement is a cop-out, leaving disposition of the embryos to the parties and the courts.
It is dangerous to make assumptions and rely on anonymous advice in any forum. I don't know if husband would necessarily be on the hook for child support of embryos created during the marriage. I also don't know that he would not.
As some have noted, this could be a long and expensive battle, and sadly, all decisions are at their root economic in nature. The legal system is not set up to take into account all of the emotial issues that accompany divorce, and it is even less able to account for the intense emotions that accompany fertility issues and treatment. A lawyer may be expensive, but I don't think that your friend can afford to be without one. At the very least she should pay for an hour consult to better understand the lay of the land and the road she is about to travel. Her local bar association can probably help find someone who specializes in this issue.
I have no expertise to offer in your friend's situation but wish her the best in this awful situation.
Julie, I did want to say though -- I think most who wouldn't carry the baby to term just chose not to comment, or chose not to address that question in their comment (that would include, ahem, me, and I have no history of HELLP). Tho', I also think the people who say no one knows for sure what they'd do until they're actually in that situation have a good point.
I don't know about your friend's case. That sucks. I'm sorry.
Regarding the embryo switch, I keep chewing on this, and then I have to spit it out again. I just don't know. I don't even mean that I don't know what I would do in that situation. I really don't know what I think that anyone should do.
Part of what makes me choke is the wholesale assumption that everybody is making is that genetic parenthood = biological parenthood. Or more specifically, that genetic motherhood = biological motherhood. Are you not Ben's mother? If you gestate a child, then you provide basically all of the material that becomes their body. You have the ability to influence them for good or ill for a lifetime by the choices that you make, and by the accidents of fortune that occur because of your own biological makeup. You can pass on your tastes by exposing a child prenatally to certain foods. They will recognize your voice and have heard your heartbeat for 9 months. You may have all kinds of epigenetic influences on who that child becomes. Isn't all that biology too? It is possible to create an embryo in a lab, but it isn't possible to create a baby. It takes a mother for that (or a surrogate). Should an egg donor be able to change their mind and sue for custody when a child is born for which they contributed only an egg? I realize that the genetic mom didn't agree to be an egg donor, but Carolyn also didn't agree to be a surrogate. In other words, I don't necessarily agree that Carolyn had any moral obligation to give the child to the genetic parents (although she might be right about the legalities). I think that our culture sometimes worships genes a little too much.
When my IVF daughter was born, I was really worried at first that they'd switched her, since she looked NOTHING like me. I was very clear on the fact that if it ever was discovered that she wasn't actually from my embryo, I was going to grab her and leave Korea (where she was conceived and born) before anyone could take her away without waiting to find out if I had a genetic child out there. I wanted to keep the one that I gestated, regardless of the genes.
Regardless, this situation totally sucks.
Julie, I'm so sorry about your friend's situation. I do think that under some circumstances (but quite likely not hers), child support can be waived before birth or even conception, otherwise there'd be a lot fewer sperm donors. And I have to say I am with some of the other commenters wondering if your friend really, truly wants to have a child with which her ex could have a legal claim to have a relationship of any type.
That said, and as per my comment on your previous post (which might have qualified me for the 1%? Not clear on that), who knows what they'll do 'til they get there? Not me, and I don't know the particulars of your friend's situation nor of her beliefs. I've also got no useful hints or information (other than, as others have suggested, that she cannot afford not to hire a good lawyer), so will just say I wish her the best and I'll keep her in my thoughts.
I have zero experience with this situation but I wanted to show support for your friend because this is a devastating position to find herself in -- her marriage has dissolved and her chances at motherhood are being put at risk.
I realize there are two sides to the story and it's not right to force someone into parenthood but there is still a part of me that just can't help wanting to break my foot off in his ass for putting her through this. No matter how irrational a thought that may be.
It doesn't make me feel small or like a Bastard at all that I would not have risked my life to carry to term a baby and then place it with another couple.
And if anyone with secondary infertility with no embryos on ice would do it, more power to them but, no, I don't think they are a better person than me.
However, I am a total Bastard in many other ways and, because of that, I glady join the group!
Lifting a glass to you!
I remember the "can't make someone a parent against his/her will" case discussions in law school, and I agree with the previous commenters who have said that a long, costly legal battle of uncertain outcome awaits your friend.
Her situation sucks. It just truly does. To have to grieve the end of her marriage along with her embryos and the hope for her fertility . . . it just sucks. It sounds like her ex is just a complete jerk. If I were her, I'd be working on grieving those losses, but I'd also be investigating other routes to parenthood that wouldn't involve long-term contact with the ex. I would be asking myself if I REALLY wanted to force him to be even an absent parent or have such a back story to tell any future child. Perhaps given the loving and giving nature of the IF community, word of her situation could lead to her getting a donor embryo from another couple in the future. Perhaps she could stipulate in the divorce settlement that the embryos would not be used in exchange for X amount of money to fund a fresh cycle for herself? A donor egg cycle in Capetown or the like? That would seem reasonable given the original language of the consent. The amount of money that it will take to keep the embryos could easily exceed the cost of a a new treatment. Obviously, no future child will totally replace or make-up for this loss, but I would be looking for different roads to parenthood. If she chooses one of those other routes, if you did a quilt (or other) raffle for her, I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that I would love to contribute.
If it is more of a pro-life view of not wanting the embryos destroyed, there were some interesting discussions several weeks back at Uppercase Woman's about frozen embryos and a variety of options--they could agree to donate the embryos to another couple, to donate to research, to transplant at a time unlikely to lead to conception, or to simply keep frozen for a longer time.
Agree with wavebrains for most part. I would not care for having anything to do with whoever divorces me since the future kid(s) would have his genes which would come to haunt me. I would rather get sperm donors instead, or find a lover or husband.
Geez. I hope they work it out. No legal advice but I will say that a friend of mine went through something similar to this with her husband. He wanted to stop IVF for good, she wanted to continue and was prepared to do it without him. He threatened to take her to court if she did, etc. They're still together and no legal action was taken...and they're still childless, and the embryos are still frozen. The advice I gave her was that regardless of their original intent to become parents in this way, her husband has a right to change his mind and not be a father. She has to respect his choice because it's immoral to knowingly force someone into parenthood against their will.
I can only imagine the outrage that this kind of scenario would cause if the husband had wanted the embryos for possible implantation into a surrogate.
It's going to be unpopular, but here's my take on the situation: biology is stacked against men when it comes to reproductive rights. It always has been and it always will be.
(For the purposes of this post, they will be known as Mr. and Mrs. Friend.)
If instead of IVF, the Friends had had sex in October 2007, the eggs had fertilized and implanted and Mr. Friend decided to divorce Mrs. Friend in December 2007, he could not go to the courts and force an abortion on Mrs. Friend because he did not want to be forced into fatherhood. The deed was done. His part in the entire reproductive process is done. He had his window of consent and consented. This is even more true with IVF. He provided his sample knowing exactly what would happen with it. The odds were much higher that his part would result in pregnancy. And he did it. As far as Mother Nature is concerned, his part is done.
Don't get me wrong, I am a huge supporter of choice. But, as far as the law is concerned when looking at (for lack of a better term) natural biological reproduction, Mr. Friend's choice was made and he is legally the father of the resulting child(ren). I don't see the difference when it comes to IVF.
It is interesting to note, if Mr. Friend was the one who wanted them and used a surrogate, the child(ren) would not legally be Mrs. Friend's. She would have no legal claim to them just like the Morrells have no legal claim to their son. They have to adopt them from the Savages. In fact, legally, Carolyn Savage is the baby's mother and she has the legal right to child support from Paul Morrell because he is the baby's biological father. That, to me, is forcing someone to be a parent.
If you hire a new lawyer, your new lawyer should take care of the process of getting your file from your former lawyer and getting any necessary substitution of counsel filed with the court.
You can hire any lawyer you want, as long as they're licensed to practice in the court where your case is pending, but hiring one near the courthouse can save you from having to pay for your lawyer's travel time.
In Arkansas, Mr. and Mrs. Friend could not even be divorced in December of 2007, because it is illegal to get divorced here if you're pregnant. You have to wait until the baby is born. Then, Mr. Friend WOULD be on the hook for child support (or Mrs. Friend if Mr. Friend won custody), just as he would if Mrs. Friend becomes pregnant with these embryos.
I don't have anything insightful to say about the Savages, mostly because while I suck at conception I'm pretty good at pregnancy. I also don't have any legal help on the embryos. My only comment is that it was yet another bit of confirmation that I had married the right man when he readily agreed (legally, on paper) that in the event of divorce any embryos would be mine.
Yeah, it was pretty easy in this last cycle for us to agree that Paul would get any unused embryos, since they contain his genetic material and not mine. But that's a different story, when donor gametes are involved.
I wonder whether that would change anyone's opinion, or a court's.
Here is an article on "Non-Traditional Families and Alternative Family Building: Securing Parental Rights for Intended Parents" http://www.family-law-illinois.com/uploads/articles/19.pdf
This advice is good regardless of divorce if any kind of assistance, adoption, or LGBT issues are present in your family building.
In the interest of full disclosure, I know one of the attorneys in the firm.
Another thing I find disturbing about your friend's situation is that the husband participated in the IVF process in August but then gave her an ultimatum about stopping the FET in November. So clearly in November he was already thinking of divorce. And I assume he didn't just wake up one morning and decide, "Today I don't want to be married or be a father." It had to have been in his mind for a while, right? But the way he went about it so deceitfully just kills me. What a tool. I wish your friend the best.
I'm a health care attorney- your friend needs to find a firm that works solely on reproductive law. (I know a great firm in Chicago that specializes only in this type of law.) Best of luck to her. Please feel free to email me directly if your friend would like assitance finding a firm.
I'm a health care attorney- your friend needs to find a firm that works solely on reproductive law. (I know a great firm in Chicago that specializes only in this type of law.) Best of luck to her. Please feel free to email me directly if your friend would like assitance finding a firm.
If I knew this person, and loved her, and given several other assumptions, I would make her a cup of tea and say this from the heart: "Let these ones go. They aren't your last chance (are they?) You will spend what you would for another collection cycle on the lawyers, and you will almost certainly lose. The precedent is all in his favor. The woman who spit semen in a paper cup, stored it in the freezer and inseminated herself with it, got child support from her ex-boyfriend. There's nothing you can do to let him renounce parental rights. If it were a baby you were talking about, he could only give up rights if you had someone standing by to adopt it. Do not tie yourself or your children to this man. Make your own family with donor sperm. You could do it right now, and hold the embryos until you have taken some time to get over your divorce. Then make your family, and your beautiful children will not have your forever-fucked relationship with their biological parent messing up their heads."
PS: This whole "fertilized embryos are no different from conceived child" line is no good. It might feel that way to some people, but legally it is completely different. Those embryos do not make him a parent, but transferring them would.
I'm sorry for your friend- really I am. But IMO, she cannot force her ex to become a father, any more than he can force her to be a mother. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, in this case. Doesan't mean it doesn't suck, or that I don't feel for her- it does, and I do. But life sometimes isn't fair, and this is one of those cases.
I agree with Bette above--creating embryo's does not make you a consenting parent. It makes you willing [and hopefully eager] to become a parent. Alot of stuff can happen from point A to point B. From the August embryo creation to the November disassociation, many many things could have happened to change this man's mind. Including him being a douche, but not necessarily.
Perhaps it just all became too much, as was the case with my husband after 2 miscarriages and 2 ectopics. He was just exhausted and done. Nature had another plan for us (thank goodness) and now we have our little girl, but for that moment, he didn't want to be a father anymore and it almost destroyed us. I get it now and regret making him feel like an ass for wanting to call it quits. What I should have given him was a break from trying to become a parent.
The truth is ladies that, when it comes to being mommies, we obsess, often times to the detriment of those around us. Some men can handle it--they want it just as bad--but for those whose male biological clocks just don't tick as loud--they feel confused, alone, and incredibly unsure of whether they are doing the right thing. Many of them are simply following their wife's lead. So it is that we can act nutty, they can get freaked out, and what was supposed to be the "simple" creation of a family can become the destruction of an otherwise loving marriage. The stress on both people is enormous and when the woman cracks we all feel sorry for her and see her as the victim of her own infertility but when the man does, well, he's a villain. Sounds like a double standard.
@Lexie - With respect, you are off on a couple of points. The baby Carolyn Savage carried was not legally hers. She could have fought, but she would have lost. If you're referring to many states' conventions around birth certificates, there is still legal recourse, in all states, to attach parental rights to the correct biological parents. No matter who's married to whom, or carried the fetus. And as far as the law is concerned, a man who has fertilized frozen embryos does still have a choice on whether he becomes a parent. He is an owner of property, one of two. He shares control of the property's disposition. And if that disposition leads to the birth of a child, then he's a parent. His role in making those cells a baby or not is not finished, according to the law.
I didn't comment on the embryo mix-up story before (1st time commenter, long time lurker), but after going through infertility and a traumatic birth with severe pre-eclampsia that came out of NOWHERE, I would probally terminate as well. My birth experience was bad enough, I cannot imagine that with a history of HELLP I would risk my life for someone else. I am not that noble. I have a child that needs a mother, a husband that needs a wife, and other kidlets to create. I think perhaps those of us that had complications with birth have a different perspective.
And I too feel terrible for your friend. I have no idea what the precedent is, but from reading other comments it doesn't look good. What really strikes me as sad is that the love could be lost in their relationship to the point that he would deny a chance for their potential children to exist when the mother wants them. Actually, I think that is some sick, selfish shit. And I am pro-choice! Anyways, maybe I am missing something here but I think that you would have to compare the reversed situation to the father wanting to keep the embryos and have a surrogate carry them, not the bio mother. Ugh, what a terrible situation.
I feel badly for her, truly I do. But I am going to have to go with the other people who think she'd be better off cutting her losses and starting over with donor sperm. Their life together is over, plain and simple. She can't force fatherhood on him. I think starting fresh would be a much healthier decision for her, instead of clinging to the last shreds of a broken marriage. I wish her the very best of luck though, and please keep us updated!
I think whoever mentioned above that those of us who had easy pregnancies can more easily say they would do it vs you who - we all know -didn't well, she has a point. Don't feel small, Julie. Risking your life - and at the same time taking the risk of leaving your own children motherless... I can totally see your point. Especially once you are already a mother... there are other people involved, too you know?
Hi, it's one of the dicks again.
The more I think about it, the more I come down even more heavily in the No Way, No Day, FUCK No camp.
The Savages found out right away, right? It's not like they found out post viability or something, correct?
Look, I wasn't even willing to go down with the ship of MY OWN pregnancy before viability, and I superduperOMGtotally wanted to have children.
Would I run into a burning building to save frozen embryos? No. Would I endanger my life to prevent somebody else's miscarriage? No. Would I run into traffic to save somebody else's child? Yes, of course.
It's different.
Extra support for my "Yeah, I'm a Dick" claim: Before the girls were born, we talked about what we would do if they came out very obviously not ours (genetically). We were about 95% sure we would tell our families we used donor gametes and move on. Obviously we'd tell the kids the truth, but...yeah, dicks. If the clinic came to us at this point and said "Say, about those embryos..." I would not give them up for anything. I would flee the country with them, genetics be damned.
Re your friend: If those embryos were her last chance to have a child, I'd say fight the good fight. Otherwise, she should cut both her losses and all ties to this jackass. Does she really want this jerk telling the kid(s) that HE didn't want to be a father, but Mommy MADE him?
Anybody skeezy enough to move forward with a FET with divorce on his mind is not to be trusted with children.
Yikes.
There was a case in Ireland along these lines, except in that case they already had two children together (don't know whether through IVF or not) and the frozen embryos were an attempt for a third.
I have to say I came down on the husband's side. No-one else should have the right to make children who would be genetically mine - and for whom I would have to pay child support - without my full and express consent. Embryos are not people - they are potential people. It is not the same thing.
I believe in the Irish case the wife is taking her case to the EU courts, but given that she will be in her mid-40's by the time the case is heard, it will probably be a legal exercise by that point.