Davis v. Davis
842 S.W.2d 588 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In disputes over the disposition of cryopreserved preembryos, courts should first enforce any prior agreement between the progenitors. If no agreement exists, a balancing of the parties' interests must be performed, wherein the right to avoid procreation is typically superior to the right to procreate, especially when the party wishing to procreate intends to donate the preembryos rather than use them for their own implantation.
Facts:
- Mary Sue Davis and Junior Lewis Davis married in 1980.
- After several tubal pregnancies left Mary Sue Davis unable to conceive naturally, the couple pursued in vitro fertilization (IVF).
- In December 1988, after six prior unsuccessful attempts, the couple underwent an IVF procedure that included cryopreservation.
- Nine ova were successfully fertilized; two were transferred to Mary Sue's uterus without resulting in pregnancy, and the remaining seven preembryos were cryogenically preserved.
- The couple did not execute a written agreement regarding the disposition of the preserved preembryos in the event of death or divorce.
- Junior Davis filed for divorce in February 1989, leading to a dispute over the future of the seven preembryos.
- During the litigation, Mary Sue Davis's position changed; she no longer wanted to use the preembryos herself but wished to donate them to a childless couple.
- Junior Davis remained opposed to becoming a parent and wanted the preembryos discarded.
Procedural Posture:
- Junior Lewis Davis filed for divorce from Mary Sue Davis in a Tennessee trial court.
- The trial court found the preembryos were 'children in vitro' and awarded 'custody' to Mary Sue Davis for implantation.
- Junior Davis, as appellant, appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that Junior Davis had a constitutional right not to beget a child and granted the parties 'joint control' over the preembryos.
- Mary Sue Davis, as appellant, appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual's constitutional right to avoid procreation outweigh their former spouse's interest in donating cryogenically preserved preembryos to a third party when no prior agreement on disposition exists?
Opinions:
Majority - Daughtrey, J.
Yes. An individual's interest in avoiding unwanted parenthood outweighs their former spouse's interest in donating preembryos to a third party. The court established that preembryos are not persons or property, but occupy an interim category that entitles them to special respect due to their potential for life. The right of procreational autonomy encompasses both the right to procreate and the equally significant right to avoid procreation. In balancing these competing rights, the burden of unwanted genetic parenthood on Junior Davis, with all its financial and psychological consequences, is more significant than the burden on Mary Sue Davis of being unable to donate the preembryos. The court noted the case would be closer if Mary Sue intended to use the preembryos herself and had no other reasonable means of achieving parenthood, but her desire to donate them to another couple gives her a less compelling interest.
Analysis:
This landmark case established the foundational legal framework for resolving disputes over cryopreserved preembryos in the United States. By classifying preembryos as neither 'persons' nor 'property' but as an intermediate category deserving 'special respect,' the court avoided constitutional pitfalls and created a flexible approach. The decision heavily influenced subsequent jurisprudence by prioritizing individual procreational autonomy and establishing a hierarchical test that favors prior agreements and then a balancing of interests. This balancing test, which often favors the party wishing to avoid parenthood, has set a strong precedent that guides family law and reproductive technology disputes nationwide.
Unlock the full brief for Davis v. Davis