"Decisions about family and children often are difficult, and can be wrenching when they become disputes," the judge wrote. "The policy best suited to ensuring that these disputes are resolved in a clear-eyed manner ... is to give effect to the intentions of the parties at the time of the decision at issue."...Choice.
The embryos were being held at the University of California, San Francisco, which in accordance with state law gave Lee and Findley a consent agreement before fertility treatments in which both said they would like the embryos thawed and discarded in case they divorced, according to court documents.
November 19, 2015
"A woman must abide by an agreement with her ex-husband to destroy five frozen embryos if they got a divorce..."
"... despite her contention that they represent her last chance to have children, a California judge ruled Wednesday."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
53 comments:
Last chance for child support.
How did this even get to trial? It's HIS call as much as hers. If he says no, then it's no.
Last chance to have children? Those two lesbos in Utah figured it out.
Those two dudes on Modern Family figured it out.
Last chance?
What would Donna Summer do?
"Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!"
Seeing live born children as a threat is strange. It is a sign of the perfected treatment of persons as objects. Traditionally, living offspring WERE the social security pension plan.
But she only agreed because she was coerced! It was rape!
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to artificially concieve.
Wonder why either would ask or accept that deal.
Oh, that this too, too sullied flesh would melt,
Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew.
I can see some logic here. Typically, you cannot agree to forgo child support for unconceived, and maybe even unborn, children. The idea there is that child support belongs to the kids, or something like that. So, how do you potentially get around the child support problem in the case of a divorce before implantation? The embryos don't, yet, have any legal rights of their own (thanks in part to Roe v Wade). But ultimately would, if implanted.
Why are you going with "sullied"?
Maybe she can adopt a refugee orphan if it's a child she wants and not her ex's income.
Prick. (But the child support angle I hadn't thought of; that's a nasty twist.)
Sexual/cultural anarchy brought to you by our friends on the Left
"The policy best suited to ensuring that these disputes are resolved in a clear-eyed manner ... is to give effect to the intentions of the parties at the time of the decision at issue."...
So a strict interpretation of a text's meaning in a contractual agreement - that includes a best-effort analysis to derive the intention(s) of those agreeing to its meaning at the time of its inception - applies when aborting human life objects. Huh. It's a shame they really don't do that when considering U.S. Constitutional issues.
The woman's position:
I'm just a girl. My contracts are not binding.
Seems like a step backwards for women (what she wants).
Last chance for child support.
And if the woman were to renounce any and all child support in exchange for keeping the embryos viable, would that change anything?
How many of these babies are girls???? Choice.
And if the woman were to renounce any and all child support in exchange for keeping the embryos viable, would that change anything?
She can't. That support belongs to the children. It's not hers to dispose of.
Well, that's interesting. At least one woman knows what a man feels like regarding abortion decisions being completely out of our hands.
She can't. That support belongs to the children. It's not hers to dispose of.
We had to kill the children to protect their rights.
Just when you think you night have some idea about what the internet holds you find Shakespeare Reads Freud...
Sweet!
So both parties are equally bound by a contract. Clearly feminists would agree, because, after all, they believe in "equality of the sexes."
Under the logic of current abortion/murder law, since the mother wants these frozen embryos, aren't they human? So wouldn't killing them then be murder?
I mean, if a mother takes out a hit on her kid and later decides not to go through with it, the law doesn't say the contract should be fulfilled.
Of course, as a person interviewed on NPR about a similar case in Chicago years ago said, "Good parents don't put their children in freezers."
How are these frozen embryos conceptually different from a fetus? If he by virtue of a contract he isn't obligated to be a father in this instance as per the CA court why would he be obligated in CA to be a father in another circumstance where he doesn't wish to be a father?
Choice.
She had a choice. When she signed the contract.
Although, given the state of abortion and family law, I'm pretty surprised that the judge didn't rule in favor of the woman. I expect it to be overturned on appeal.
"I can see some logic here. Typically, you cannot agree to forgo child support for unconceived, and maybe even unborn, children. The idea there is that child support belongs to the kids, or something like that."
The obvious solution would be to rename "child support" to "custodial parent support," since that's what it really is. After all, it's a direct payment to the custodial parent who, since she need not account for how it is spent, may spend it as she pleases.
So, a legal lie which is intended to support custodial mothers (or far more rarely, fathers) ends up denying this woman what may be her last chance to bear children. It's a shame, yet since law is inevitably political (sausage factory) I can't see this one changing anytime soon.
I wonder how she'd feel if her ex-husband was the one who wanted the embryos implanted in his new wife who was unable to conceive? It's probably why she signed the contract in the first place. To keep another woman from bearing her child.
Sofa King said...
And if the woman were to renounce any and all child support in exchange for keeping the embryos viable, would that change anything?
She can't. That support belongs to the children. It's not hers to dispose of.
11/19/15, 7:58 AM"
A pious lie. If the law and the courts actually adhered to that concept then the custodial parent receiving the support would be a trustee for the child and would have a fiduciary duty to use the money wisely and solely for the benefit of the child. Imagine the number of woman that could be sued for breach of the fiduciary duty and fraud for using the kid's money for themselves.
cubanbob said... [hush][hide comment]
Sofa King said...
And if the woman were to renounce any and all child support in exchange for keeping the embryos viable, would that change anything?
She can't. That support belongs to the children. It's not hers to dispose of.
11/19/15, 7:58 AM"
A pious lie. If the law and the courts actually adhered to that concept then the custodial parent receiving the support would be a trustee for the child and would have a fiduciary duty to use the money wisely and solely for the benefit of the child. Imagine the number of woman that could be sued for breach of the fiduciary duty and fraud for using the kid's money for themselves.
11/19/15, 9:14 AM
Sorry but that could and would only happen if it were a custodial father that was misappropriating the funds cause #waronwomen. In the eyes of the court (especially in curtain jurisdictions) it is ALWAYS better to leave a child with mommy versus daddy regardless of mommy's lifestyle unless mommy is a home-school supporting, religious person and daddy is not. That is the one exception that makes the rule...
And if the woman were to renounce any and all child support in exchange for keeping the embryos viable, would that change anything?
Wouldn't matter. If she goes on welfare, the state would make him pay regardless.
Which is why sperm donors, if smart, would never give their real name.
I think most writers would read that bit of Shakespeare and go with "solid."
Eleanor said...
I wonder how she'd feel if her ex-husband was the one who wanted the embryos implanted in his new wife who was unable to conceive?
Excellent thought.
Eleanor said...
I wonder how she'd feel if her ex-husband was the one who wanted the embryos implanted in his new wife who was unable to conceive?
A more apt situation would be that the husband wants to use the embryos in a surrogate, raise the child himself and hit her up for child support. Would she agree to that? Would the courts EVER override her "choice" and allow the ex-husband to do it?
Speaking of the new California law that yes means yes and must be clearly intended:
"The embryos were being held at the University of California, San Francisco, which in accordance with state law gave Lee and Findley a consent agreement before fertility treatments in which both said they would like the embryos thawed and discarded in case they divorced, according to court documents.
Choice."
Now what if men were to get woman to sign a consent agreement not to carry to term if the man doesn't wish to be a father, if this court decision has any legs how would such a consent agreement be invalid? I presume if she has the kid despite the consent agreement he would have to pay child support until eighteen but then he would have an action against the mother for every dime of support plus the legal rate of interest.
I think the woman was unreasonable, and wasted money on a worthless trial, that given the contract she signed, was hopeless.
She needs to forget about having children, as she can't even manage her own life properly.
cubanbob said...
I presume if she has the kid despite the consent agreement he would have to pay child support until eighteen but then he would have an action against the mother for every dime of support plus the legal rate of interest.
11/19/15, 9:48 AM
I think not as the support is "owed" to the child and is [supposedly] for the child, not the mother. She is the custodian of the funds on the child's behalf, assigned that right by the state.
If an underage male rape victim is required to pay child support (and they are) "for the good / welfare" of the child, no male is safe under any circumstances.
Holy crap a court held a woman to her word and didn't allow her to violate a marriage related contract based on her feelz. I'm shocked this occurred in California.
Every pro-choice politician should be given this fact scenario and asked what they would do. Seems more fair than the "rape and incest" question for pro-life politicians.
Todd said...
cubanbob said...
I presume if she has the kid despite the consent agreement he would have to pay child support until eighteen but then he would have an action against the mother for every dime of support plus the legal rate of interest.
11/19/15, 9:48 AM
I think not as the support is "owed" to the child and is [supposedly] for the child, not the mother. She is the custodian of the funds on the child's behalf, assigned that right by the state.
If an underage male rape victim is required to pay child support (and they are) "for the good / welfare" of the child, no male is safe under any circumstances.
11/19/15, 9:56 AM"
You're missing the point here. I said if this case has any legs in California it's logic is incompatible with what the current law is in CA. First being the guy has an affirmative right to demand a no kid agreement and if the woman consents its binding. Then if she goes ahead and has the kid while the father has to support the kid until majority then presumably he would have a cause of action against the mother. If the logic of this case is followed by the CA courts to its conclusion any guy in CA that definitely doesn't want to be a father would get the woman (guys prepare to not get laid except with hookers for the most part) to sign a no kid consent agreement. She breaks the deal, he gets deferred compensation. As for the minor paying child support as per your example with this court precedence his argument that he was incapable of giving consent both under this decision and the yes means yes CA legislation would moot his obligation. He gets ordered to pay support and he sues her for fraud for the same amount plus interest. Judgments are good for twenty years.
Well, King Solomon had a solution...
There was splooge, but he weren't no stooge.
The argument is about the enforceability of contracts. Of course, there are well settled grounds on which courts can decline to enforce a contractual bargain -- contrary to public policy, illegal bargain, etc. There are many places where public policy strongly favors and encourages natural population increase. Alas, California is not one of them.
In thinking about this case, I wondered what the harm was to the ex-husband if the ex-wife got to impregnate herself with one of those embryos and bring it to term. Perhaps the possibility of child support obligations. Those may not be waivable under California law (probably aren't since the public treasury might have to make up any shortfall). So his financial interest can trump her biological interest in being a mother. Not the usual lefty way those kinds of interests are parsed out, but, hey, the patriarchy has to win some times. Perhaps the harm to him is some odd-ball psychological harm in knowing that there's another half-him running around, and he just doesn't want that -- it makes him anxious, or jealous or something.
It's the flip side of the Schaivo (sp?) case from some years ago in Florida, where the husband wanted his ostensibly brain-dead wife to become really dead, while her parents wanted to keep her going (in whatever sense there was still a "her" there). His spousal right trumped their parental rights, said the court. But what was the harm to him if that came out the other way? Perhaps he wanted to get remarried but refused to divorce his dead-but-not-quite-dead-enough wife, or couldn't for religious or ethical reasons? Perhaps it was the pain he would suffer by not giving her the send-off he knew she would have wanted? Whatever, it doesn't seem clearly to outweigh the harm to the parents.
cubanbob said...
How are these frozen embryos conceptually different from a fetus? If he by virtue of a contract he isn't obligated to be a father in this instance as per the CA court why would he be obligated in CA to be a father in another circumstance where he doesn't wish to be a father?
Well "has a valid signed contract" <> doesn't have that and just "doesn't wish to be a father."
Your question really should be if the facts of the case were otherwise the same (same contract not to be parents, same divorce after conception) but the woman was pregnant would the court enforce the contract insofar as ruling that he wouldn't have to pay child support. I suspect that wouldn't work (that the court wouldn't rule for him and if it did would be overturned by a ruling finding that the State's interest overcomes his personal contract), and in no case would/could a court hold that she'd have to get an abortion (since that'd involve involuntarily violating her bodily integrity, the contact would be voided).
The reason that this is different from an agreement not to have kids as a result of sex, etc, is that they involve the sanctity of a woman's body, which would be breached if she were forced by the guy to abort their jointly initiated fetus. These embryos are outside her body, and, thus, outside those considerations.
She made a choice when she signed the agreement.
Maybe a bit more is in order. Roe v Wade, et seq. would presumably prevent a guy from forcing his prospective co-parent to abort their joint fetus. The justification there starting with the privacy of a woman's body. And, yes, regardless of what agreements the two parents signed, the noncustodial parent would likely get stuck paying child support, regardless of what subterfuges the other parent engaged in to get pregnant (including lying about fertility or contraception, turning their used condom inside out and reinserting it, etc) But embryos and fetuses don't get human rights until somewhere between mid-term and birth, thanks, again to Roe v Wade. Before mid-term, at the earliest, the only person who has rights here is the woman carrying a fetus. And these never implanted embryos never got that far.
It isn't her only chance. Even if she has no eggs left of her own (post menopause), a few years ago it was discovered that stem cells exist which can grow into wholly new eggs. As a result, in a few more years — unlike the stale, aging eggs which were the last she'd had during her closing years of unassisted fertility — she'll be able to create new, young eggs for herself. Men can also participate in this technology; they'll be able to make not only new, young sperm, but also eggs! Maybe even eggs bearing a Y chromosome rather than X! (That could combine with an X-carrying sperm made by a woman, to produce a male baby! We live in a science-fiction age.) Thus the point in the quoted article about men providing only sperm for this new-age process is likely incorrect.
""Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes-"
"But they Starts with thinking about people as things…"
I suspect its all (nearly) moot.
The probability of (biological) success is low and declining every day.
All the unwilling potential parent needs to do is delay some more.
The issue of time makes it possible to consider a quick settlement -
She could pay him a lump sum that would compensate him for any future risk of a demand for support.
Either those embryos are just "stuff", in which case enforcing the contract is a no-brainer, or they are human, in which case the contract to dispose of them could not be valid. Do those arguing the ex-wife's side really want to go down that road?
Post a Comment