Skip to main content
· 11/5/2019

Bilbao v. Goodwin

Citations

  • 333 Conn. 599

Syllabus

The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court dissolving his marriage to the plaintiff and awarding her certain pre-embryos that the parties had cryopreserved after having created them through in vitro fertilization during their marriage. The parties had entered into a storage agreement with the reproductive services center responsible for cryo- preserving the pre-embryos. The storage agreement contained checkbox options that provided for disposition of the pre-embryos under certain circumstances. The parties checked the box indicating that they agreed to have the pre-embryos discarded in the event that they divorced, initialed their selection, and signed the agreement. The plaintiff asked the trial court to order that the pre-embryos be discarded in accordance with the storage agreement, whereas the defendant claimed that he had changed his mind, was no longer bound by that provision of the storage agreement, and wanted the pre-embryos preserved so that the parties could have children in the event that they reconciled or, in the alternative, wanted the pre-embryos to be donated. The trial court determined that the storage agreement was not enforceable because it lacked consider- ation. The court then awarded the pre-embryos to the plaintiff, conclud- ing that the plaintiff's interest in them outweighed the defendant's interest. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court incorrectly determined that a pre-embryo is property subject to distribution under the statute (§ 46b-81) governing distribution of the marital estate upon divorce and also claimed that, even if it is property, in the absence of an enforceable contractual agreement, the court failed to employ a legal presumption in his favor as the party seeking to preserve the pre-embryos because they are human beings. Held: 1. This court concluded that the contractual approach to determining the disposition of a pre-embryo upon divorce, pursuant to which an agree- ment between progenitors

Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.