In re the Marriage of Witten
672 N.W.2d 768 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agreement regarding the disposition of frozen embryos is not enforceable when one party withdraws consent to procreate, as public policy dictates that decisions about family and reproduction are personal and can be changed before the embryos are used. In cases of disagreement, the status quo of frozen storage must be maintained until the parties reach mutual consent.
Facts:
- Arthur (Trip) Witten and Tamera Witten were a married couple who were unable to conceive children naturally.
- They underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF), using Tamera's eggs and Trip's sperm to create embryos.
- The couple signed an 'Embryo Storage Agreement' with the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC).
- The agreement stipulated that the release or disposition of the embryos required the signed approval of both parties.
- After several unsuccessful implantation attempts, seventeen frozen embryos remained in storage at UNMC.
- During their dissolution proceedings, Tamera wished to be awarded the embryos to attempt to become pregnant.
- Trip objected to Tamera using the embryos to procreate but was amenable to donating them to another couple.
Procedural Posture:
- Arthur (Trip) Witten filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Tamera Witten in Iowa district court (trial court).
- The district court treated the parties' embryo storage agreement as a binding contract and enforced its mutual consent provision.
- The district court enjoined both parties from using or disposing of the embryos without the written consent of the other.
- Tamera Witten (appellant) appealed the district court's ruling on the embryos to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
- Arthur Witten (appellee) filed a cross-appeal challenging the property division and attorney fee award.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a dissolution action, does an embryo storage agreement that requires mutual consent for the release or disposition of frozen embryos control when one party later wishes to use the embryos to procreate over the other party's objection?
Opinions:
Majority - Ternus, J.
No. The embryo storage agreement does not control because public policy prevents the enforcement of a prior agreement concerning reproductive choice when one party has a change of heart. The court holds that agreements concerning embryo disposition are subject to the right of either party to change their mind up to the point of use or destruction. The court first rejected the application of a 'best interests of the child' analysis, concluding that frozen embryos do not have the legal status of children under Iowa's dissolution statute. The court then analyzed three approaches to resolving such disputes: the contractual approach, the balancing test, and contemporaneous mutual consent. It rejected a strict contractual approach because forcing procreation against a person's current wishes violates public policy. It also rejected the balancing test, as it would improperly require courts to make intensely personal decisions for the parties. Instead, the court adopted a model of contemporaneous mutual consent, holding that if the parties cannot agree on disposition, the status quo must be maintained, and the embryos must remain in storage until a mutual agreement is reached.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that procreative autonomy trumps prior contractual obligations in disputes over frozen embryos in Iowa. By adopting the 'contemporaneous mutual consent' model, the court prioritizes an individual's right to change their mind about becoming a parent over enforcing a contract. This precedent creates a clear default rule for future cases: in the event of a stalemate, the embryos remain frozen indefinitely. The ruling avoids classifying embryos as either persons or property, instead focusing on the decision-making authority of the progenitors and the strong public policy against compelled procreation.
Unlock the full brief for In re the Marriage of Witten