Or did they have an oral contract, represented by the seven-minute phone conversation that they had about their decision, with Dunston calling from home and Szafranski speaking on a cell phone in his workplace bathroom?What about a draft contract written up by a lawyer about the embryo disposition, which was never signed?They had been friends for almost ten years, and regarded each other with mutual esteem.When the doctor mentioned the possibility of anonymous sperm donors to Dunston and gave her a list of banks she might try, she stuck with Szafranski.The circumstances changed, however, a few months after that.Szafranski resumed his relationship with a woman he had dated before Dunston.
After a 2000 divorce dispute, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled, “As a matter of public policy, we conclude that forced procreation is not an area amenable to judicial enforcement.”Illinois has, so far, used a hybrid approach.
“I thought that he was a wonderful person that I had a lot of respect for, that I thought was honest and good, and I admired him as a person,” she testified.
Elsewhere, she refers to him as “an angel.” Even in the weeks after their breakup, both seemed sure of their choice.
In a 1998 dispute between a divorcing couple, the Court of Appeals in Albany followed the contract that they had signed with the clinic.
In another approach, Iowa requires mutual consent before embryos can be disposed of or used.