The Supreme Court of Arizona ruled that a woman could not use her frozen embryos against her ex-husband’s wishes.
Ruby Torres and John Joseph Terrell divorced in 2017. In 2014, the couple had decided to freeze embryos before Torres underwent cancer treatments that harmed her ability to reproduce. At the time of the decision, the two had not yet married. They agreed that, if they split, they would either donate the embryos or allow Torres to use them with “express, written consent” from Terrell.
After the divorce, Torres notified Terrell that she intended to use the embryos and asked for his consent. Terrell refused, prompting Torres to file a lawsuit. The lower court ruled in Terrell’s favor, claiming that his “right to not be compelled to be a parent outweighs (Torres’) right to procreate and desire to have a biologically related child.”
Torres appealed that decision, and the appeals court ruled in her favor, overturning the lower court’s decision. Terrell, however, then appealed the ruling to the state’s Supreme Court, which accepted the case.
The state’s top court ruled last week in Terrell’s favor and declared that Torres could not have a child with Terrell’s DNA against his will. The court made its decision based on the contract that the couple signed when the embryos were first frozen. Because of the clause that required signed consent, “the court could only direct donation of the embryos.”
The court noted that it understood there would be an “unavoidable emotional fallout” from the ruling but said the contract had to stand as written.
An attorney for Terrell said: “These are extremely difficult and emotional issues, so it’s best for couples to make decisions ahead of time. The Arizona Supreme Court enforced their contract, which gives much-needed certainty to other couples around the state that courts will respect the decisions they make.”
Torres could still appeal the ruling by asking the Arizona Supreme Court to reconsider it’s decision or trying to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
