Also known as: frozen embryo · cryopreserved embryos
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Cryopreserved embryos resulting from in vitro fertilization. In disputes over control and disposition, courts enforce any prior agreement between the progenitors or, absent such an agreement, balance the parties' relative interests with a presumption favoring the party who wishes to avoid procreation.
Frederick Ferguson and Felicia Fuentes created several frozen embryos during their marriage but never signed a disposition agreement. After divorce Frederick seeks to use the embryos for implantation while Felicia objects and wants them destroyed. The court weighs their competing interests and awards control to Felicia because the balance favors the party seeking to avoid procreation absent compelling circumstances.
Fumiko Fujimoto and her spouse signed a cryopreservation agreement with Frontier Capital's fertility clinic that expressly labeled the embryos as the couple's property and authorized transfer. When the couple later demanded shipment to an out-of-state surrogate clinic the facility refused citing internal policy. The court enforces the agreement and orders release because the contract treats the embryos as property subject to the couple's disposition rights.
Faye Fuller and her former partner executed a consent form directing that unused frozen embryos be donated to research upon divorce. After separation Faye seeks to implant the embryos instead. The court upholds the form's terms and denies implantation because the prior written agreement controls disposition.
Flora Ford and her ex-husband signed an agreement awarding the frozen embryos to her upon divorce. After the divorce the ex-husband objects to her use of the embryos. The court enforces the agreement and awards control to Flora because prior written agreements between progenitors are controlling.
Courts treat the embryos as a form of property subject to ordinary contract and disposition principles rather than as legal persons. This characterization allows enforcement of the written agreement allocating control and transfer rights to the couple.
Supporting sources
A court must weigh and balance the relative interests of the parties. The balancing generally favors the party wishing to avoid procreation absent compelling circumstances.
Supporting sources
No. Internal labeling or policies that are not part of the parties' written agreement cannot unilaterally alter the contractual allocation of property rights and disposition authority.
Supporting sources
Yes when the agreement clearly expresses the parties' intent at the time of signing. Courts prioritize enforcement of such agreements to provide predictability in embryo storage arrangements.
Supporting sources
…Within recent months, for example, the press has carried news of a divorcing New Jersey couple now litigating the disposition of frozen embryos, with the husband wanting them for implantation in a future spouse and the wife objecting (see, Booth, Fate of Frozen Embryos Brings N.J. Again to Bioethics Fore: With No Precedent,…