Jocelyn P. v. Joshua P., 302 A.3d 1111

Jocelyn and Joshua married, pursued infertility treatments and produced three viable pre-embryos via IVF; first resulted in miscarriage, second in birth of child F.P., third remained frozen and became the dispute.
Both parties signed clinic forms; the clinic contract did not clearly control disposition on divorce and included boilerplate allowing clinic to defer to court orders.
Jocelyn testified (consistently) that the parties agreed to “give every embryo the chance to be used, no matter what”; Joshua acknowledged they agreed to give embryos a chance at life but later asserted that the agreement did not contemplate divorce and he preferred destruction after separation.
On initial trial the court preserved the status quo; on first appeal this Court (Jocelyn I) adopted a blended contractual/balancing approach: first enforce any progenitors’ agreement, otherwise apply Rooks balancing factors.
On remand the circuit court found the oral agreement limited to the context of marriage and awarded the pre-embryo to Joshua after balancing; the Appellate Court reversed, concluding the oral agreement unambiguously required giving each embryo a chance at life and remanded with instructions to award the pre-embryo to Jocelyn and schedule further proceedings regarding parental rights and support as appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Jocelyn)	Defendant's Argument (Joshua)	Held
Whether the parties’ oral agreement to “give every embryo a chance at life” was limited to being married and raising children together	The agreement was unambiguous — “no matter what” includes divorce; Jocelyn relied on the promise and incurred substantial physical and economic sacrifices	No discussion of divorce occurred; the parties intended the promise only in the context of an intact marriage, so Joshua should not be bound post-divorce	Court: The oral agreement’s terms were undisputed and, under the objective theory, “no matter what” includes divorce; trial court erred in adding a post-hoc limitation. Agreement controls.
Whether the court properly balanced the parties’ competing interests under the Rooks factors	If no enforceable agreement, balancing should favor Jocelyn given her age, diminished chances if IVF restarted, and physical/financial sacrifices; but because agreement controls, balancing is unnecessary	Balancing favors Joshua because of his interest in avoiding forced parenthood and existing co-parenting difficulties	Court: Because the oral agreement controls, appellate court did not reach the merits of the Rooks balancing; remanded with instructions to enter judgment for Jocelyn and schedule further proceedings on parental rights/support after birth as appropriate.

Jocelyn P. v. Joshua P., 250 Md. App. 435 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2021) (adopting blended contractual/balancing approach and remanding to consider oral agreement)
Marr v. Langhoff, 322 Md. 657 (Md. 1991) (construction of undisputed oral contracts is a question for the court)
In re Marriage of Rooks, 429 P.3d 579 (Colo. 2018) (set of balancing factors for embryo disputes)
Kass v. Kass, 696 N.E.2d 174 (N.Y. 1998) (enforce advance agreements on embryo disposition to honor progenitors’ autonomy)
Szafranski v. Dunston, 34 N.E.3d 1132 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015) (enforced prior oral agreement giving progenitor right to use pre-embryos without limitation)
Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992) (recognizing competing procreative rights to procreate and to avoid procreation)
Bilbao v. Goodwin, 217 A.3d 977 (Conn. 2019) (enforced clinic consent form selecting disposition option)
Roman v. Roman, 193 S.W.3d 40 (Tex. Ct. App. 2006) (enforced clear written consent directing embryos be discarded upon divorce)