Posted on 09/12/2008 7:10:51 PM PDT by SmithL
SACRAMENTO -- Iris and Joseph Kievernagel disagreed about having children during their 10-year marriage, and their argument moved into the courts - and the casebooks of legal precedent - after his death in a helicopter crash.
In a ruling made public Friday, a state appeals court said the Sacramento County woman has no right to use her husband's frozen sperm to become pregnant because he had made it clear he did not want to father a child posthumously.
If only one spouse has contributed genetic material, "the intent of the donor" must control its disposition after death, said the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. The situation would be different, the court said, if the dispute involved frozen embryos - fertilized eggs - which would require that both spouses' wishes be considered.
Lawyers in the case said only one previously recorded California ruling, in 1993, had discussed the rights of a surviving spouse or partner to custody of frozen sperm.
The new ruling "provides some much-needed guidance in an area where reproductive technology has clearly outstripped the legal system," said Jay-Allen Eisen, lawyer for the husband's parents, who opposed the widow's request.
Suzanne Alves, a lawyer for Iris Kievernagel, said the court failed to address "the near-impossibility of determining someone's intent when they pass away" and leave no will, as was the case with Joseph Kievernagel. She said her client would consider an appeal to the state Supreme Court.
Joseph Kievernagel, 36, of Citrus Heights, was one of two Sacramento County sheriff's deputies killed when their helicopter crashed into a hillside near Lake Natoma east of Sacramento in July 2005.
The court said he and his wife had a loving marriage, with one subject of disagreement: She wanted children and he did not.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Man, judges must all be thinking “things used to be easy in the ‘don’t steal horses’ days.”
This is stupid but it probably is true that there is no cheaper commodity on earth than human sperm. Most owners are eager to give it away.
Um, I don’t think the guy cares one way or another now.
Depending on the utlimate disposition of the sperm, I see the danger of a slippery slope here.
The guy’s dead, what does he care now? Let her have the kids now...’course if she can’t afford them that’s another story.
I don’t understand how his parents could be against it. Wouldn’t they want to see the reflection of their departed son in the eyes of grandchildren?
Honey, I ate the kids?!?!?
IMHO, if you don’t want it used, why jack off in a bottle. Is that a difficult concept? On further thought, why jack off in a bottle anyway?
Well, duh. Wouldn’t it be awfully cold?
(She said.)
Uh. I know I will regret asking but here goes.
How did she get the sperm without his knowledge in the first place.
Icky question.
Never mind. Read the article.
I say get it to her. He did finally agree to go to the fertility clinic and made a “deposit”
Never mind. Read the article.
I say get it to her. He did finally agree to go to the fertility clinic and made a “deposit”
I’ve been craving Popsicles all day and now you have to post a cherry one. I hate you. :-)
It may be for inheritance reasons. Any child conceived using the father’s sperm would be in line to inherit his/her grandparent’s assets, if there’s no will.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.