Current Events > Supreme court rules woman must get ex husbands consent to be impregnated.

(+) Yeah! (+)

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a woman who has since become infertile after surviving an aggressive form of cancer may not use the embryos she had frozen before treatment to have a baby without her ex-husbands consent and must donate them instead.

Ruby Torres, 39, decided to have her eggs fertilized in 2014 after she was diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer and was told by an oncologist that chemotherapy would likely make her infertile. John Terrell, her boyfriend at the time, initially declined to serve as a sperm donor but eventually agreed, AZ Centralreported, citing court documents.

The couple signed an agreement at a fertility clinic that stated, should they split up, the embryos would not "be used to create a pregnancy without the express, written consent of both parties." The couple married days after signing the contract, but divorced three years later in 2017.

During their divorce proceedings, Terrell asked the Maricopa County Superior Court to prevent Torres from having the embryos implanted. He said he no longer desired to become a father to children hed be financially responsible for. The court sided with him and ordered the embryos to be donated.

The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned that decision in March, ruling that Torres' rights to have children prevailed over her ex-husbands objections to becoming a parent.

The back-and-forth court battle inspired a bill in the Arizona State Legislature allowing a former spouse to use the embryos against their former partner's wishes, but relieves the ex-spouse of parental responsibilities like child support. It became law in 2018, but was not retroactive to include past cases. The Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that lobbies for religious freedom and anti-abortion policies, had lobbied the state legislature on Torres behalf.

Im heartbroken for Ruby Torres today, Cathi Herrod, the group's president, said in a statement after Thursdays ruling. Its a sad day that she will not be able to bring her children to birth and raise them as she so desired.

On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the couples initial contract, which determined that both parties must consent in order for Torres to use the embryo to become pregnant. The high court, serving with only five of seven justices, unanimously agreed that the embryos should be donated to a third-party.

We are cognizant of the unavoidable emotional fall-out attendant to the disposition of the embryos here, Justice Ann Scott Timmer wrote in the ruling. But the family court was required to enforce the parties chosen disposition of the embryos as set forth in the Agreement.

"This was a case that, once you took all the emotion out of it, hinged simply on contract law," Terrells attorney, Claudia Work, told the Phoenix Times. "It's a cautionary tale to clinics to be careful on their phrasing. It was clear that the only options available to the trial court were to enforce the contract and donate in this situation."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-woman-embryos-frozen-cancer-pregnant-without-ex-husbands-consent-donate-ruby-torres

https://i.imgur.com/aQVY5EA.jpg

Can't they just agree that she gets the sperm but hes not financially responsible for it?

That seems like a win-win to me

Ex Hubby doesn't want her to suffer he just doesn't want to suffer either
---

I dare say your topic title unfairly represented the issue.
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I dare say your topic title unfairly represented the issue.

How so?
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

The couple signed an agreement at a fertility clinic that stated, should they split up, the embryos would not "be used to create a pregnancy without the express, written consent of both parties." The couple married days after signing the contract, but divorced three years later in 2017.

Fair, next.

---

I don't think you can make the father not legally responsible.

Besides that, it would be forcing him to have a child against his wishes, which is pretty not cool.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

The couple signed an agreement at a fertility clinic that stated, should they split up, the embryos would not "be used to create a pregnancy without the express, written consent of both parties." The couple married days after signing the contract, but divorced three years later in 2017.

Welp.

This is why you don't sign dumb agreements I guess.

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I dare say your topic title unfairly represented the issue.

You expected anything less?

---

Alteres posted...

I don't think you can make the father not legally responsible.

Why not?

Just like make them sign a waiver or some shit
---

I feel like him agreeing to give his sperm initially should be enough permission to move forward with this but I dunno. Weird situation. Seems especially fucked of the guy to deny her this.
---

spikethedevil posted...

You expected anything less?

No. Just felt like pointing it out early on in the topic.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Why not?

Just like make them sign a waiver or some shit

Because the child doesn't deserve to suffer, ultimately, and should be properly financially supported.

Obviously you could do this in benefits from the government, but it will be a cold day in hell before America agrees to supporting children after they are born.

---

Funkydog posted...

Because the child doesn't deserve to suffer, ultimately, and should be properly financially supported.

What bad logic

so should single mothers who ate pregnant all get abortions?

I assume she has a new boytoy, even if she doesn't why cant she have a kid?

I dont see how the baby suffers if the biological dad ops out of responsibility
---

I figured this was a frozen embryo thing when I read the title. Clinics have you sigh waivers from the very beginning on what to do with them if for various reasons that can come up (divorce, death of one or both of you, etc).

She signed that waiver and they picked the option to dispose of them. If he was ok with her using them should they have spilt up, they would have already agreed to it. Not much else to it.

She should have just frozen her eggs.

Okay, you actually almost got me to respond to you. Gotta give it to you, you do have a knack for irking folk.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

so should single mothers who ate pregnant all get abortions?

That is certainly one way to go about it.

---

No one, I mean NO ONE should be forced to have children against their own will. If you think otherwise, youre a sociopath. EVEN if they granted the father complete legal freedom to not be financially responsible for the child, dont you think its weird to live day to day knowing your blood is out there somewhere and youre pretending/comfortable not being a part of their life? Then that father is a sociopath in that case. Either way you look at it, this is creation of life. This is not a game.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Can't they just agree that she gets the sperm but hes not financially responsible for it?

That seems like a win-win to me

No, becuase she can easily just go to court afterward, particularly family court, sue him for child support and very likely win. Contractual agreement or not.


---

Funkydog posted...

Okay, you actually almost got me to respond to you. Gotta give it to you, you do have a knack for irking folk.

"I have no argument so I will insult you"

yeah figured

zinezinzadan posted...

No one, I mean NO ONE should be forced to have children against their own will. If you think otherwise, youre a sociopath

Sure but I dont think the guy is adversed to having his sperm used.

He just doesn't want financial responsibility. That's all.

Seems like an easy fix to me
---

zinezinzadan posted...

No one, I mean NO ONE should be forced to have children against their own will. If you think otherwise, youre a sociopath. EVEN if they granted the father complete legal freedom to not be financially responsible for the child, dont you think its weird to live day to day knowing your blood is out there somewhere and youre pretending/comfortable not being a part of their life? Then that father is a sociopath in that case. Either way you look at it, this is creation of life. This is not a game.

Calm down.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

He said he no longer desired to become a father to children hed be financially responsible for. The court sided with him and ordered the embryos to be donated

So is this like suspended sex? He'd be financially responsible for the kids? Just make a new contract

---

Sto this is a basic ass question about whether a contract is enforceable....ok
---

Prismsblade posted...

No, becuase she can easily just go to court afterward, particularly family court, sue him for child support and very likely win. Contractual agreement or not.

This pretty much.

Smashingpmkns posted...

I feel like him agreeing to give his sperm initially should be enough permission to move forward with this but I dunno. Weird situation. Seems especially fucked of the guy to deny her this.

Is it? They split up. Hed be on the hook for child support and more than likely healthcare, daycare, and extra expenses such as extra curricular activities once the child is over.

To a child he doesnt want to an ex.

Does that really sound fair to him?

XxKrebsxX posted...

Is it? They split up. Hed be on the hook for child support and more than likely healthcare, daycare, and extra expenses such as extra curricular activities once the child is over.

To a child he doesnt want to an ex.

Does that really sound fair to him?

no but why can't he just sign something that says he's not on the hook for that shit

That legally he isnt the dad
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

no but why can't he just sign something that says he's not on the hook for that shit

That legally he isnt the dad

America courts are famous for forcing fatherhood on men. They would force it on him. Doesn't matter if there is some contract. They would ignore it.

UnfairRepresent posted...

no but why can't he just sign something that says he's not on the hook for that shit

That legally he isnt the dad

Laws > contracts though

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

no but why can't he just sign something that says he's not on the hook for that shit

That legally he isnt the dad

Uhhh... what the fuck dude...? Because its still his own flesh and blood living a life somewhere and hes supposed to pretend the child doesnt exist? Thats fucked up if you can do that. Which is why any emotionally intellectual, sane man would object to this.

---

Abiz_ posted...

America courts are famous for forcing fatherhood on men. They would force it on him. Doesn't matter if there is some contract. They would ignore it.

Just to add onto this, there is extreme disfavor towards contracting away child support obligations to the degree that public policy would render such agreements generally unenforceable.

---

zinezinzadan posted...

Uhhh... what the fuck dude...? Because its still his own flesh and blood living a life somewhere and hes supposed to pretend the child doesnt exist? Thats fucked up if you can do that. Which is why any emotionally intellectual, sane man would object to this.

He said he no longer desired to become a father to children hed be financially responsible for

He's not bothered by the kids, just the financials
---

zinezinzadan posted...

No one, I mean NO ONE should be forced to have children against their own will.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Why not?

Just like make them sign a waiver or some shit

But then the state will have to help cover the child raising costs.

Literally the main thing stopping people from making their own contracts to waive child support.

---

tainted_emerald posted...

But then the state will have to help cover the child raising costs.

Literally the main thing stopping people from making their own contracts to waive child support.

Maybe the waiver could include that they wave the right for state support too
---

Topic title made me think this would be fucked, but they signed an agreement. This is the cleanest, fairest next.

---

just to note that i've seen fathers be on the hook for child support no matter the agreements and contracts and other supposedly legally binding documents. like, a man donates sperm to a sperm bank, has a signed contract that he's not on the hook and there's no obligation to any children that may come forth. some woman uses it knowing the details of the contract, gets pregnant, needs money, and courts say that he's on the hook, completely throwing away the contract.

shit's broken

---

Lmao @ clickbait title


---

Bananana posted...

Lmao @ clickbait title

It's not

---

KnightofShikari posted...

just to note that i've seen fathers be on the hook for child support no matter the agreements and contracts and other supposedly legally binding documents. like, a man donates sperm to a sperm bank, has a signed contract that he's not on the hook and there's no obligation to any children that may come forth. some woman uses it knowing the details of the contract, gets pregnant, needs money, and courts say that he's on the hook, completely throwing away the contract.

shit's broken

Yeah I do agree it should be a specific exception that a man is not responsible for the child if he simply donated to a sperm bank or the pregnancy was the result of him being raped.

In that case it's the responsibility of the mother and government and/or rapist.

---

I know it's hard to believe for many people, but men have rights too. She signed the contract, case closed.

---

Total bs f... Arizona!

---

BigDD67 posted...

I know it's hard to believe for many people, but men have rights too. She signed the contract, case closed.

I'm not saying he shouldn't.

But he should have the right to say "I'm not responsible for the kid" and if both parties agree with that, that should be fine
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I'm not saying he shouldn't.

But he should have the right to say "I'm not responsible for the kid" and if both parties agree with that, that should be fine

agreed let her impregnate herself but take away all financial responsibility from the man i will add

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

The couple signed an agreement at a fertility clinic that stated, should they split up, the embryos would not "be used to create a pregnancy without the express, written consent of both parties." The couple married days after signing the contract, but divorced three years later in 2017.

Case closed then.

---

dave_is_slick posted...

Case closed then.

Case unclosed

The guy is okay with the sperm being used, he just doesn't want to be responsible for it.

That's not unreasonable and the courts shouldn't be unable to handle that
---

He shouldn't even consider giving her permission, men in the west have pretty much zero reproductive rights if they'll force a man that was raped when he was 14 to pay child support to the woman that raped him what do you think they'd do in this case.

This seems like far too nuanced of a situation to trust the courts would deal with it in a logical way.

---