Men: what if your sperm is not your sperm? I know, that question sounds silly, doesn't it? But that's essentially the logic behind a recent move by an Arizona court that ruled a woman wanting to use her ex's sperm which had previously been saved "outweighed" the man's desire to become a father, as Asche Schow recently reported in Daily Wire.
Not only that, but he'll also likely be responsible for paying child support for 18 years, 18 years, which is what Kanye West said in Gold Digger. John Terrell will have to pay up.
In case you're wondering how John got into this pickle, the whole thing began back in 2014 when his then girlfriend, Ruby Torress, was diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer. She began the lengthy task of chemotherapy. Since they anticipated they may one day get married and have kids, they both decided to save their embryos.
Originally John didn't want to donate his sperm for the embryos. But after his girlfriend said she'd get sperm from an ex, he had a change of heart.
Ruby, apparently, survived cancer, eventually they got married and, as things don't always work out how we might hope, ended up divorcing John.
During their divorce it occurred to John that his ex still had his sperm in storage with the embryos so he brought his case to Maricopa County Superior Court and requested they not be used without his consent. That court ruled the embryos should be given to a third party.
Ruby appealed and won on March 14th.
Judge Jennifer B. Campbell wrote in a 2-1 decision overturning the lower court’s finding, “The trial court erred when it placed heavy weight on the parties’ inability to 'co-parent. Nothing in the record suggests that either of them expected or intended to co-parent any offspring derived from the embryos."
But in the dissenting opinion Judge Maria Elena Cruz pointed out how John & Ruby signed a contract five years earlier when they preserved the embryos in which both parents agreed they would provide “express, written consent” for the DNA to be used.
Ruby even acknowledged in her testimony that “we did sign a contract and we agreed to these provisions.”
But, as Judge Cruz pointed out, the contract is now being ignored.
Cruz wrote, “Do contracts matter? I believe they do. Therefore, because the contract of these parties explicitly prohibits the outcome reached by the majority, and because it is outside our purview to reweigh the evidence, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment, or, in the alternative, remand the matter to the trial court for a new weighing of the parties’ interests.”
The case inspired state lawmakers to impose a law in 2018 that frees future individuals in similar situations from having to take legal responsibility for kids conceived against their own free will.
The Republican describes the bill as requiring “that viable embryos from a divorced couple be awarded to the parent who will allow a child to be born” but “also states the other parent has no rights or obligations.”
This, of course, won’t help Terrell, who will likely be on the hook for child support should Torres use the embryos.
The law bill requires viable embryos from a divorced couple be awarded to the parent who will allow a child to be born but also states the other parent has no rights or obligations, as Republicans in the state have described it.
Of course, it's too late for John. The hard arm of Johnny Law isn't giving him a break.