Tuesday, October 22, 2024
Ohio Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case Over IVF Embryos at Divorce that Held Embryos are "Life or Potential for Life"
Ohio Supreme Court Declines to Hear Couple's Fight Over IVF Embryos
Ohio Supreme Court justices will not hear a divorcing couple's fight over their IVF-created frozen embryos, citing jurisdiction. Justices Patrick Fischer and Jennifer Brunner dissented.
Instead, the seven-member court republished the 9th District Court of Appeals decision from Summit County, which upheld that all frozen embryos be granted to the wife so she might use them to become pregnant.
Although the Summit County decision did not firmly rule on whether frozen embryos have the same rights as people, it did determine that embryos are not marital property but are "life or the potential for life."
For Tracy Thomas, a University of Akron law professor, the Ohio Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case left many questions unanswered. Until those questions are answered, the decision will likely not induce a wave of sweeping changes across the Buckeye State.
"The appellate court's decision stays as good precedent in that district and is persuasive to the rest of (Ohio's) appellate courts," Thomas explained.***
At the heart of the case was an IVF contract signed by the wife, E.B., and husband, R.N. Both parties argued the contract allowed them to do what they wanted with 14 frozen embryos once they decided to divorce.
A Summit County trial court ruled that the embryos should be split equally between the two parties, citing the contract. On appeal, the wife argued the contract was vague and did not account for her situation.
Appeals Judge Donna Carr ruled in favor of the wife, granting all 14 embryos to her.
The trial court, Carr wrote, should have considered the parties' intent and wishes instead of relying on an ambiguous contract.
"The express public policy of the State of Ohio is to prefer the preservation and continuation of life whenever constitutionally permissible," Carr wrote. "While the statute specifically addresses abortion, it is nonetheless telling and instructive to courts addressing what should become of frozen embryos caught up in the midst of a divorce proceeding."
At the same time, Carr acknowledged the Ohio constitutional right to contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one's pregnancy, miscarriage care and abortion.
Thomas said this part of the ruling likely would not stand up under review by the Ohio Supreme Court. She argued that it conflicts with Ohio's constitutional reproductive rights amendment, which says life begins when a fetus can live outside the womb, also known as fetal viability.
The case decided by three women judges is E.B. v. R.N., 2024-Ohio-1455 (Ohio App. 9th Dist. April 2024)
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/gender_law/2024/10/ohio-supreme-court-declines-to-hear-case-over-ivf-embryos-at-divorce-that-held-embryos-are-life-or-p.html