Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1 Widow can't use husband's frozen sperm to conceive, court rules 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Widow can't use husband's frozen sperm to conceive, court rules

    SACRAMENTO -- Iris and Joseph Kievernagel disagreed about having children during their 10-year marriage, and their argument moved into the courts - and the casebooks of legal precedent - after his death in a helicopter crash.

    In a ruling made public Friday, a state appeals court said the Sacramento County woman has no right to use her husband's frozen sperm to become pregnant because he had made it clear he did not want to father a child posthumously.

    If only one spouse has contributed genetic material, "the intent of the donor" must control its disposition after death, said the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. The situation would be different, the court said, if the dispute involved frozen embryos - fertilized eggs - which would require that both spouses' wishes be considered.

    Lawyers in the case said only one previously recorded California ruling, in 1993, had discussed the rights of a surviving spouse or partner to custody of frozen sperm.

    The new ruling "provides some much-needed guidance in an area where reproductive technology has clearly outstripped the legal system," said Jay-Allen Eisen, lawyer for the husband's parents, who opposed the widow's request.

    Suzanne Alves, a lawyer for Iris Kievernagel, said the court failed to address "the near-impossibility of determining someone's intent when they pass away" and leave no will, as was the case with Joseph Kievernagel. She said her client would consider an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

    Joseph Kievernagel, 36, of Citrus Heights, was one of two Sacramento County sheriff's deputies killed when their helicopter crashed into a hillside near Lake Natoma east of Sacramento in July 2005.


    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...T4JG.DTL&tsp=1
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2 Well that's retarded 
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4
    Obviously if he froze his spunk - he meant it to be used to procreate.

    :eek:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis MN
    Posts
    643
    Quote Originally Posted by fleur View Post
    Obviously if he froze his spunk - he meant it to be used to procreate.

    :eek:
    Seems like it. But apparently he still needs to sign off on it for its usage. And so far it seems that he only signed off on what it can't be used for.

    I think this has a good chance to hold up in the higher courts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by fleur View Post
    Obviously if he froze his spunk - he meant it to be used to procreate.

    :eek:
    A Superior Court judge refused, citing the couple's contract with the clinic in which a box was checked saying the sperm was to be discarded if he became incapacitated or died.

    I don't understand why a man would donate sperm if he didn't expect it to be used some day. And for him to check off the box saying the sperm is to be discarded if he cannot speak for himself is also odd.

    Why would a dead person care if his sperm is used? This whole case is just strange.

    As for the woman saying she has a constitutional right to procreate, yes, she does. She can remarry or get another donor. If the dead hubby didn't want his line carried on after his death, that should be honored just as as a DNR should be honored.

    I have to agree with the Judge here. It's not like it's an embryo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member LibraryLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    3,748
    The court said he and his wife had a loving marriage, with one subject of disagreement: She wanted children and he did not. They nevertheless tried unsuccessfully to conceive a child and went to a clinic to begin in vitro fertilization in June 2005, but had not completed the procedure before his death.

    His widow, administrator of his estate, sought custody of the vial of sperm he had deposited with the clinic. A Superior Court judge refused, citing the couple's contract with the clinic in which a box was checked saying the sperm was to be discarded if he became incapacitated or died.
    This whole thing is strange. he didn't want children but went to a fertility clinic?

    Wonder if there is any connection to the big monetary settlement that these police received.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by LibraryLady View Post
    This whole thing is strange. he didn't want children but went to a fertility clinic?

    Wonder if there is any connection to the big monetary settlement that these police received.
    Always follow the money !!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by LibraryLady View Post
    This whole thing is strange. he didn't want children but went to a fertility clinic?

    Wonder if there is any connection to the big monetary settlement that these police received.
    He and she went to the fertility clinic together to try in vitro. Apparently, while he was lukewarm on the subject of children, he was willing to try to have them with his wife, while he was alive. He was not willing to try to have them posthumously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •