Michigan Supreme Court to Decide Custody Battle Over Frozen Embryo
The Michigan Supreme Court is set to deliberate on a contentious custody battle involving a frozen embryo, a case stemming from the divorce of David and Sarah Markiewicz. This legal dispute adds a layer of complexity to the couple’s separation, as the fate of an embryo conceived with the involvement of Sarah’s sister’s eggs remains undecided.
During their marriage, David and Sarah welcomed four children, three of whom were conceived through in-vitro fertilization (IVF). The lingering question from their 2020 divorce is the ownership of the remaining frozen embryo, which has sparked legal debates.
In a December 2023 decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled in a 2-1 vote that the frozen embryo should be awarded to David Markiewicz, citing his stronger biological connection. The court dismissed Sarah Markiewicz’s claim under Michigan’s reproductive freedom amendment, which she argued should grant her custody.
The dissenting opinion in this case highlighted the importance of considering contractual agreements between the parties, suggesting that the matter be revisited by a trial court to examine these contracts alongside the state’s reproductive freedom amendment. This dissent underscores the complexity of legal interpretations in reproductive technology cases.
Liisa Speaker, an attorney and chair of the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, commented on the broader implications of this case. In an interview with Michigan Public Radio, Speaker expressed that many couples avoid discussing potential outcomes when using assisted reproductive technologies. “What if one of them dies before the embryo is implanted and what happens then? They need to be thinking about what happens in the event of a divorce,” she remarked. “If we have multiple embryos that haven’t been used, what are we going to do with them?”
As IVF and other reproductive technologies become increasingly prevalent, Speaker believes that a ruling from the Supreme Court could provide much-needed guidance for similar future disputes. This case may set a precedent, shaping how courts handle the growing number of legal challenges in reproductive technology cases.
—
Read More Michigan News
