In re the Marriage of Rooks
2016 COA 153
| Colo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Drake and Mandy Rooks divorced after having three children conceived by IVF; six additional embryos remained cryopreserved.
- The parties signed clinic agreements (participation and storage) that listed options and provided that disposition on divorce could be addressed in divorce paperwork; both initialed the option to have embryos thawed and discarded as a default.
- Wife contended the embryos should remain stored so she could have another (her last eggs were used); husband sought destruction and opposed fathering more children.
- The trial court construed the storage agreement as ambiguous and, relying on equitable power, applied two alternative analyses (contract and balancing) and awarded the embryos to husband.
- Wife appealed, arguing errors in contract interpretation, the balancing analysis, and violations of constitutional rights; the Court of Appeals affirmed under the balancing-of-interests approach.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper legal framework for embryo disposition on divorce | Enforce storage agreement / contract governs | If no enforceable allocation, court should decide; consider husband's interests | Court: enforce valid contract terms, but where contract is silent/ambiguous, apply equitable balancing of interests |
| Interpretation of storage agreement | Agreement/button selected means wife should be entitled to embryos (or at least not discarded) | Agreement left disposition to divorce decree or court if parties disagreed | Court: contract ambiguous as to who gets embryos; did not create enforceable unilateral right for wife; court erred below if it added terms; disposition left to court equity |
| Application of balancing-of-interests test | Wife: her interest in having another genetically-related child outweighs husband’s interest | Husband: his interest in avoiding further procreation outweighs wife’s (she already has 3 children) | Court: affirmed award to husband — husband’s interest in avoiding procreation prevailed given wife already has children and other considerations (emotional, financial, child impacts) |
| Constitutional challenges (procreation, privacy, equal protection, due process) | Wife: award violates her procreational autonomy and other constitutional rights | Husband: both parties hold equal constitutional interests; court may balance them | Court: no constitutional violation; balancing protected both parties’ competing rights and did not improperly apply a child-best-interest test |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992) (endorses contract approach; where no agreement exists, uses balancing-of-interests and favors party seeking to avoid procreation)
- Kass v. Kass, 696 N.E.2d 174 (N.Y. 1998) (enforces embryo-disposition agreements as contracts between progenitors)
- In re Marriage of Witten, 672 N.W.2d 768 (Iowa 2003) (adopts contemporaneous mutual consent approach — leaves embryos in storage absent mutual post-divorce consent)
- Szafranski v. Dunston, 993 N.E.2d 502 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013) (discusses contract and balancing approaches; critiques Iowa’s mutual consent rule)
- Szafranski v. Dunston, 34 N.E.3d 1132 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) (affirming balancing analysis where woman’s infertility made embryos her only reproductive option)
- J.B. v. M.B., 783 A.2d 707 (N.J. 2001) (applies balancing-of-interests when no enforceable agreement exists)
- Reber v. Reiss, 42 A.3d 1131 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2012) (applies balancing test and weighs whether embryos are a party’s only chance at genetic parenthood)
- Roman v. Roman, 193 S.W.3d 40 (Tex. App. 2006) (enforces embryo-disposition contract choices where parties were aware of options)