Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Article on "It's Not My Fault!": Inequality Among Posthumously Conceived Children and Why Limiting the Degree of Benefits To Babies Is a "No-no!"
Katie Christian recently published an article entitled, "It's Not My Fault!": Inequality Among Posthumously Conceived Children and Why Limiting the Degree of Benefits To Babies Is a "No-no!", 36 Miss. C.L. Rev. 194 (2017). Provided below is an abstract of the Article:
Girl meets boy. Boy likes girl. Girl and boy decide to get married. Like most young adults, the boy and girl dream of having children. But what if the possibility of having children came with a price? Many situations arise that can either foster or hinder a young couple's ability to start a family. For example, suppose Fitz and Marie got married in 2010. Three years later, unexpectedly and to the devastation of both Fitz and Marie, Fitz is diagnosed with cancer causing the young couple to put their plans for a family on hold. Told that a side effect of chemotherapy and radiation treatment is infertility, the couple decides to utilize a sperm bank to freeze Fitz's sperm. In the event that Fitz could overcome the cancer, the frozen sperm would give the couple the opportunity to have the family they always wanted. Sadly, Fitz dies six months later. Still desiring a child, Marie, through assisted reproductive technologies ("ART"), uses Fitz's frozen sperm to become pregnant with a baby boy. Should this baby, who was conceived after the death of his father, have less of a right to inheritance benefits from Fitz's estate just because Fitz died before he was born? The answer to that question is "it depends," and the outcome will be determined by what state Fitz and Marie resided in at the time of Fitz's death.