The following two tabs change content below.

Matt Rooney
is a New Jersey attorney, former Superior Court law clerk, and noted commentator who focuses his practice on family law, municipal court defense, and personal injury matters. He was recognized by SJ Magazine as a 2018 “Top Divorce & Family Attorney."

Latest posts by Matt Rooney (see all)
- N.J. COURT: Live-In Nannies Are Covered By The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act - July 31, 2019
- When will the judge hear my N.J. family court motion? - October 16, 2018
- N.J. may soon allow “hardship licenses.” Here’s what that means. | Rooney - October 10, 2018
The “infertility” dilemma remains an open one for divorcing couples
Changes in technology and the American family generally continue to provide family courts with new challenges. Lawyers naturally need to adapt and innovate in order to keep up with these developments and serve their clients. A great example lies in the realm of the fertility arena.
In essence, J.B. and M.B. have agreed only that on their divorce the decision in respect of control, and therefore disposition, of their cryopreserved pre-embryos will be directed by the court. In this area, however, there are few guideposts for decision-making. Advances in medical technology have far outstripped the development of legal principles to resolve the inevitable disputes arising out of the new reproductive opportunities now available. For infertile couples, those opportunities may present the only way to have a biological family. Yet, at the point when a husband and wife decide to begin the in vitro fertilization process, they are unlikely to anticipate divorce or to be concerned about the disposition of pre-embryos on divorce. As they are both contributors of the genetic material comprising the pre-embryos, the decision should be theirs to make.” …. “[T]he Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court as well as our Appellate Division have declared that when agreements compel procreation over the subsequent objection of one of the parties, those agreements are violative of public policy.”The Court did NOT, however, determine what would happen in the case of an infertile party wishes to use the embryos against the will of his or her partner:
We agree with the Tennessee Supreme Court that ‘[o]rdinarily, the party wishing to avoid procreation should prevail.’ Here, the Appellate Division succinctly described the ‘apparent’ conflict between J.B. and M.B.: In the present case, the wife’s right not to become a parent seemingly conflicts with the husband’s right to procreate. The conflict, however, is more apparent than real. Recognition and enforcement of the wife’s right would not seriously impair the husband’s right to procreate. Though his right to procreate using the wife’s egg would be terminated, he retains the capacity to father children.”The question remains: Would a parent’s desire to be a parent outweigh the other party’s fundamental right to not be a parent when the parent desirous of surrogacy has no other procreative option?

The following two tabs change content below.

Matt Rooney
is a New Jersey attorney, former Superior Court law clerk, and noted commentator who focuses his practice on family law, municipal court defense, and personal injury matters. He was recognized by SJ Magazine as a 2018 “Top Divorce & Family Attorney."

Latest posts by Matt Rooney (see all)
- N.J. COURT: Live-In Nannies Are Covered By The Prevention of Domestic Violence Act - July 31, 2019
- When will the judge hear my N.J. family court motion? - October 16, 2018
- N.J. may soon allow “hardship licenses.” Here’s what that means. | Rooney - October 10, 2018