Battle for Baby: Proposed Legislation for Custody Battles over Frozen Pre-Embryos
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The use of in vitro fertilization to have a biological child is on the rise due to rising infertility and the desire of same-sex couples to have a biological child. In vitro fertilization allows for a couple who may not otherwise be able to have a biological child have one by combining sperm and eggs in a laboratory and cryogenically freezing the resulting embryo for implantation. As the use of in vitro fertilization is on the rise, so too are the complications that come with the use of in vitro fertilization. For example, courts handle custody battles over the use or disposition of the frozen pre-embryos, often with dire consequences for one or both sides. By having state legislatures propose and adopt legislation concerning in vitro fertilization and custody battles over frozen pre-embryos, the courts will avoid messy custody battles over the embryos. This comment calls for nationwide implementation of state statutes regarding the custody aspect of frozen pre-embryos begotten through in vitro fertilization. After providing a general overview of the in vitro fertilization process and how the courts have handled disputes over frozen pre-embryos, the author sets out the necessary components of a proposed state statute regarding disputes over frozen pre-embryos.
Abstract
The use of in vitro fertilization to have a biological child is on the rise due to rising infertility and the desire of same-sex couples to have a biological child. In vitro fertilization allows for a couple who may not otherwise be able to have a biological child have one by combining sperm and eggs in a laboratory and cryogenically freezing the resulting embryo for implantation. As the use of in vitro fertilization is on the rise, so too are the complications that come with the use of in vitro fertilization. For example, courts handle custody battles over the use or disposition of the frozen pre-embryos, often with dire consequences for one or both sides. By having state legislatures propose and adopt legislation concerning in vitro fertilization and custody battles over frozen pre-embryos, the courts will avoid messy custody battles over the embryos. This comment calls for nationwide implementation of state statutes regarding the custody aspect of frozen pre-embryos begotten through in vitro fertilization. After providing a general overview of the in vitro fertilization process and how the courts have handled disputes over frozen pre-embryos, the author sets out the necessary components of a proposed state statute regarding disputes over frozen pre-embryos.
참고문헌 (29)
- "Embryo wars: Avoiding Sofia Vergara’s legal woes"[URL]
- "Feuding couples bring embyro battles to court" (2015)[URL]
- Anthony John Cuva, "Note, Legal Dimensions of in Vitro Fertilization: Cryopreserved Embryos Frozen in Legal Limbo", N.Y.L. Sch. J. Hum. Rts, 8(383) (1991)
- Jean Voutsinas, "In Vitro Fertilization", Prob. L.J, 12(47), pp.48~ (1995)
- Kathryn L. Honea, "Legal Dilemmas of in-Vitro Fertilization", Health Law, 4(12) (1990)
- Gail D. Sillman, "In Vitro Fertilization and Cryopreservation", Mich. B.J, 67(601) (1988)
- Tracey S. Pachman, "Over Frozen Preembryos & the “Right Not to be a Parent”", Colum. J. Gender & L, 12(130)
- Andrea Fischer, "Solomon and in Vitro Fertilization: Characterization and Division of Embryos in the Case of Divorce", J. Contemp. Legal Issues, 11(263) (2001)
- York v. Jones, , F. Supp, 717(421), pp.422~ (1989)
- Dahl v. Angle, "194 P.3d 834, 839", ~ (2008)
- Litowitz v. Litowitz, "48 P.3d 261", ~ (2002)
- Davis v. Davis, "842 S.W.2d 588", ~ (1992)
- Campbell v. Sundquist, "926 S.W.2d 250, 263", ~ (1996)
- Reber v. Reiss, "42 A.3d 1131", ~ (2011)
- Cahill v. Cahill, "757 So. 2d 465", ~ (2000)
- Marriage of Witten, "672 N.W.2d 768", ~ (2003)
- Woodward v. Comm’r, "760 N.E.2d 257, 272", ~ (2002)
- Meagan R. Marold, "Ice, Ice, Baby! The Division of Frozen Embryos at the Time of Divorce", Hastings Women’s L.J., 25(179), pp.179~197 (2014)
- A.Z. v. B.Z., "725 N.E.2d 1051,1057", ~ (2000)
- J. B. v. M. B., "783 A.2d 707, 712", ~ (2001)
- Roe v. Wade, "410 U.S. 113", ~ (1973)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "505 U.S. 833", ~ (1992)
- Nicole L. Cucci, "Note, Constitutional Implications of In Vitro Fertilization Procedures", St. John’s L. Rev, 417(417), pp.428~ (1998)
- Adoption of Tammy, "619 N.E.2d 315", ~ (1993)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, "135 S. Ct. 2584, 2600", ~ (2015)
- Peter E. Malo, "Deciding Custody of Frozen Embryos: Many Eggs are Frozen but Who is Chosen", DePaul J. Health Care L, 3(307), pp.307~333 (2002)
- Kass v. Kass, "696 N.E.2d 174, 180", ~ (1998)
- Roman v. Roman, "193 S.W.3d 40, 50", ~ (2006)
- Similar to the balancing test used in Davis v. Davis, "842 S.W.2d 588", ~ (1992)