This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Maureen (W) and Stephen (H) were married and began trying to conceive a child. W believed that because of prenatal exposure to DES she might have difficulty in carrying a pregnancy. W failed to become pregnant. In 1989, they turned to an IVF program after they were unsuccessful in conceiving through artificial insemination. As part of those procedures, five pre-zygotes were cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen for later use. During the IVF procedures, W became pregnant twice, but both ended in miscarriage. As part of the cryopreservation, a consent form was signed by both W and H, and another consent form was signed for disposition of the excess pre-zygotes. The later form required the consent of both parties for the release of the frozen pre-zygotes and that in the event of divorce, the legal ownership of the pre-zygotes was to be determined by the court in a property settlement. Eventually, W and H decided to divorce and they signed an uncontested divorce drawn up W indicating that no one would lay claim to the custody of the zygotes in storage. W then commenced an action requesting sole custody of the zygotes so that she could undergo implantation again. H opposed that disposition of the zygotes. The trial court granted custody to W. H appealed. That decision was reversed on appeal; when the parties have determined what should happen to the zygotes, their agreement should control. This appeal resulted.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.