Kievernagel v. Kievernagel
166 Cal.App.4th 1024, 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 311 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When determining the disposition of a deceased person's gametic material to which no other party has contributed, the express written intent of the donor must control.
Facts:
- Joseph and Iris Kievemagel were a married couple undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).
- As a required part of the IVF process, Joseph provided a sperm sample to be cryopreserved by the Northern California Fertility Medical Center.
- Joseph signed a consent agreement that presented two options for the disposition of his sperm upon death: donate it to his wife or discard it.
- On the agreement, the box indicating the sperm was to be discarded upon his death was checked and initialed by Joseph.
- Iris also signed the agreement, acknowledging that the sperm sample was Joseph's sole and separate property.
- The evidence showed Joseph was initially opposed to having children but agreed to fertility treatments due to Iris's strong desire.
- Joseph died in a helicopter crash in July 2005.
Procedural Posture:
- Iris Kievemagel, as administrator of Joseph Kievemagel's estate, filed a petition in probate court seeking the preliminary distribution of his frozen sperm.
- Joseph's parents, as interested parties, objected to the petition, arguing it contradicted Joseph's express written wishes.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the probate court found that Joseph's intent was for the sperm to be discarded upon his death and denied Iris's petition.
- Iris Kievemagel (appellant) appealed the probate court's decision to the Court of Appeal of California (an intermediate appellate court).
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 a deceased donor's written directive in a consent agreement to discard his frozen sperm upon death control its disposition over the conflicting desire of his surviving spouse to use it for procreation?
Opinions:
Majority - Morrison, J.
Yes. A deceased donor's intent, as expressed in a written directive, governs the disposition of his gametic material. The court reasoned that gametic material is a unique type of property, and the individual who provides it retains decision-making authority over its use. Citing Hecht v. Superior Court, the court held that Joseph had an interest 'in the nature of ownership' allowing him to direct the sperm's use. The court distinguished this case from Davis v. Davis, which involved pre-embryos and required balancing the interests of two gamete providers. Here, because only Joseph provided the genetic material, Iris's right to procreational autonomy was not implicated in the same way, and the controlling factor is solely the donor's intent. The written agreement, in which Joseph directed the sperm to be discarded, was found to be a clear expression of that intent.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that a donor's explicit, written intent is paramount in determining the posthumous disposition of their uncombined gametic material (sperm or ova) in California. It draws a crucial distinction between disputes over single-source gametes and disputes over pre-embryos, which involve the competing procreative rights of two progenitors. By refusing to apply the Davis balancing test, the court established that a surviving spouse's desire to procreate does not override the deceased donor's clearly expressed contrary intent. This ruling underscores the critical importance of comprehensive and unambiguous consent forms in assisted reproduction arrangements.
