No reproductive rights for men

[Tom Sawyer]

Neither of them signed the contract. We don't know why. Perhaps they were uncertain or perhaps THEY WERE VERY BUSY, VERY STRESSED OUT AND RELIED ON WHAT THE OTHER WAS TELLING THEM. You know: verbal contract. Plus the texts in which he said he wanted to help her have a baby. That sort of thing. This 'contract' you are so certain that they signed was between them and the hospital, not between one another. You cannot possibly be naive enough to believe that the lawyer was calling up Jacob and trying to convince him to sign. If Jacob did have doubts before the donation as he now claims, he kept those doubts to himself.

If they relied on what each other was telling them and there was a misunderstanding between the two of them about what the terms were, then there wasn't actually any verbal contract. He thought the terms were one thing and proceeded accordingly and she thought the terms were something else and proceeded accordingly. If they didn't both agree that there was a change made to the terms of their written agreement (and the appeals court which reversed the judge's ruling feels that it's a valid written legal contract between them, so I'll take their judgement of the matter over yours, since it's more likely that they have a better understanding of Illinois law than you do), then the terms of the original contract should remain in force.

The judge made a horrible error by not only ignoring the two contracts in her ruling, but in not even making a ruling on the validity of the second contract one way or the other and that's what the retrial needs to focus on. They have one written agreement and one potential verbal agreement. From what I've seen, there was a lack of agreement between the two about the acceptance of the terms of the verbal contract and that's enough to invalidate it, since a contract which isn't agreed upon by all parties isn't a contract between them.

 

[The Paul]

Anyway, here's something I really should have clarified before now:

Which brings up a question: How does he *know* that he does not already have a biological child out there somewhere? What is so special about these embryos? That particular sperm?

Do you possess some particular knowledge regarding Jacob Szafranski indicating it should be especially difficult for him to know whether or not he currently has any children?

I have no idea of anything about Jacob Szafranski's sex life or whether or not he has fathered other children. I was just wondering if HE knew for certain.

Yes, I should have clarified that earlier.

I am sorry if you haven't found any of the links I or others have provided to be useful. I'm not going to repeat my own links or the links of others. If you actually care to understand the issues, perhaps you could read the links yourself or do what I did and perform google searches.

No, I don't think I will. Afterall, you and Ravensky seem to be indicating you've done some research on this matter, and I really feel like if you'd discovered some kind of game changer floating around out there in the interwebs you'd have shared it instead of idly speculating against the character of Jacbob Szafranski.

 

[Toni]

Neither of them signed the contract. We don't know why. Perhaps they were uncertain or perhaps THEY WERE VERY BUSY, VERY STRESSED OUT AND RELIED ON WHAT THE OTHER WAS TELLING THEM. You know: verbal contract. Plus the texts in which he said he wanted to help her have a baby. That sort of thing. This 'contract' you are so certain that they signed was between them and the hospital, not between one another. You cannot possibly be naive enough to believe that the lawyer was calling up Jacob and trying to convince him to sign. If Jacob did have doubts before the donation as he now claims, he kept those doubts to himself.

If they relied on what each other was telling them and there was a misunderstanding between the two of them about what the terms were, then there wasn't actually any verbal contract. He thought the terms were one thing and proceeded accordingly and she thought the terms were something else and proceeded accordingly. If they didn't both agree that there was a change made to the terms of their written agreement (and the appeals court which reversed the judge's ruling feels that it's a valid written legal contract between them, so I'll take their judgement of the matter over yours, since it's more likely that they have a better understanding of Illinois law than you do), then the terms of the original contract should remain in force.

The judge made a horrible error by not only ignoring the two contracts in her ruling, but in not even making a ruling on the validity of the second contract one way or the other and that's what the retrial needs to focus on. They have one written agreement and one potential verbal agreement. From what I've seen, there was a lack of agreement between the two about the acceptance of the terms of the verbal contract and that's enough to invalidate it, since a contract which isn't agreed upon by all parties isn't a contract between them.

Again, they have a written agreement (standardized consent form --NOT A CONTRACT) presented by the hospital and signed by both. Which you rely on only in part as Raven has outlined. The unsigned contract was requested by both and unsigned by both. He texted her (texts are admissible in courts of law) that he wanted to help her have a baby. He knew that there was only one shot for her to harvest eggs and fertilize them and that there would be a limited number available. He knew the time frame was short. Instead of expressing the doubts he now claims he always had, he encouraged her and told her he wanted to help her have a baby.

Two courts including 4 judges have come to the same conclusion: he agreed to create embryos which she could later use. No condition attached.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Neither of them signed the contract. We don't know why. Perhaps they were uncertain or perhaps THEY WERE VERY BUSY, VERY STRESSED OUT AND RELIED ON WHAT THE OTHER WAS TELLING THEM. You know: verbal contract. Plus the texts in which he said he wanted to help her have a baby. That sort of thing. This 'contract' you are so certain that they signed was between them and the hospital, not between one another. You cannot possibly be naive enough to believe that the lawyer was calling up Jacob and trying to convince him to sign. If Jacob did have doubts before the donation as he now claims, he kept those doubts to himself.

If they relied on what each other was telling them and there was a misunderstanding between the two of them about what the terms were, then there wasn't actually any verbal contract. He thought the terms were one thing and proceeded accordingly and she thought the terms were something else and proceeded accordingly. If they didn't both agree that there was a change made to the terms of their written agreement (and the appeals court which reversed the judge's ruling feels that it's a valid written legal contract between them, so I'll take their judgement of the matter over yours, since it's more likely that they have a better understanding of Illinois law than you do), then the terms of the original contract should remain in force.

The judge made a horrible error by not only ignoring the two contracts in her ruling, but in not even making a ruling on the validity of the second contract one way or the other and that's what the retrial needs to focus on. They have one written agreement and one potential verbal agreement. From what I've seen, there was a lack of agreement between the two about the acceptance of the terms of the verbal contract and that's enough to invalidate it, since a contract which isn't agreed upon by all parties isn't a contract between them.

Again, they have a written agreement (standardized consent form --NOT A CONTRACT) presented by the hospital and signed by both. Which you rely on only in part as Raven has outlined. The unsigned contract was requested by both and unsigned by both. He texted her (texts are admissible in courts of law) that he wanted to help her have a baby. He knew that there was only one shot for her to harvest eggs and fertilize them and that there would be a limited number available. He knew the time frame was short. Instead of expressing the doubts he now claims he always had, he encouraged her and told her he wanted to help her have a baby.

Two courts including 4 judges have come to the same conclusion: he agreed to create embryos which she could later use. No condition attached.

Again, the Illinois appeals court feels that it's a written contract. I don't know why you feel that you know more about Illinois contract law than they do. Whatever those reasons are, I have serious doubts that they're valid reasons.

No courts have ruled on the contracts. The first judge ruled on who would be impacted more. The appeals court said that this was an error and reversed the ruling and sent it back down to the lower court with the instructions that the ruling needs to be based on the contracts and made no statements itself about which contract is valid.

 

[Toni]

Again, the Illinois appeals court feels that it's a written contract. I don't know why you feel that you know more about Illinois contract law than they do. Whatever those reasons are, I have serious doubts that they're valid reasons.

That is particularly rich, seeing as I agree with the court rulings and you are the ones claiming the judges have made a serious mistake.

No courts have ruled on the contracts. The first judge ruled on who would be impacted more. The appeals court said that this was an error and reversed the ruling and sent it back down to the lower court with the instructions that the ruling needs to be based on the contracts and made no statements itself about which contract is valid.

What contracts?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That is particularly rich, seeing as I agree with the court rulings and you are the ones claiming the judges have made a serious mistake.

As did the appeals court. If the judge hadn't made a serious mistake, what do you feel the rationale was for the appeals court to reverse the ruling? Was it the end of the month and they needed to hit their quota or something?

 

[Toni]

The appeals court sent the case back so the lower court could address it on the contractural issues instead of the balanced approach. The appeals court didn't like the approach, not the ruling.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The appeals court sent the case back so the lower court could address it on the contractural issues instead of the balanced approach. The appeals court didn't like the approach, not the ruling.

Ya. One of the things that it didn't like was that the lower court made no ruling on the validity of the contracts. It was the central part of their statement.

 

[Metaphor]

It's funny: apparently the signed by both parties standardised consent form is not a contract, but the unsigned piece of paper with different terms and conditions is a binding contract.

SOLUTION: Pick whichever contract has the less favourable terms and conditions for the man.

It's funny: apparently Szafranski not really wanting to help make a baby at the time of the donation makes his actions fraudulent and the signing of the agreement not in good faith and therefore makes the contract null and void and so she should get the embryos

but when it's suitable for the other side, Szafranski's texts indicating he did want to help make the baby also shows that he agreed to the second set of terms and conditions and so she should get the embryos

Since multiple people (including the judge) have expressed the 'who has more to lose' angle, it seems she could have stolen his sperm without his knowledge for creation of the embryos and Szafranski would still have no say over implantation.

 

[RavenSky]

http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Archives/2013/10/04/appeal-10-4-13.aspx

She and Szafranski agreed to attempt in vitro fertilization to conceive a child before the treatment began. Szafranski donated sperm samples on March 25, and both parties signed an agreement stating that, among other things, “[n]o use can be made of these embryos without the consent of both partners (if applicable).”

Another agreement between the two was drawn up days later with language stating that Dunston would have sole control of the eggs and pre-embryos in case the two split up, and that Szafranski “agrees to undertake all legal, custodial, and other obligations to the [c]hild regardless of any change of circumstance between the [p]arties.” The second contract was never signed.

Szafranski deposited sperm and Dunston donated eggs on April 6, and all of them were fertilized before the two ended their relationship in May.

That's the timeline of when things happened. The new agreement was after his donation and she had plenty of time to get his agreement before using his sperm to fertilize her eggs and yet chose not to do so..

I posted, with citations, a much more detailed time line earlier in this thread. I told you then that he made TWO sperm donations, the first being termed (in the document I linked) a back-up. Moreover, the couple saw the attorney THE SAME DAY as that first donation. The draft contract as they told the attorney to prepare it was sent to them just four days later, eight days later he again donated sperm and explicitly gave consent for his sperm to fertilize all eight of her eggs.

She fully believed they had an agreement for her to implant the resulting embryos. If she didn't believe that, why would she have all eight fertilized? If HE really had doubts that day, why did HE authorize his sperm to fertilize all of her eggs?

Looking at the situation rationally, it should be clear they did have an agreement, which included her being able to implant those embryos after her chemo treatment, on that day. He knows it too, which is why his legal arguments are that he shouldn't be bound by that agreement.

 

[RavenSky]

Kindly provide evidence that he "refused" to sign it. It is clear that by using that specific word, you are implying knowledge that he disagreed with the terms of the agreement. The mere fact that neither of them signed it does not in and of itself indicate that either of them was in disagreement on its terms.

No.

The alternative here is a couple of people decided to pay some lawyers to draw up a contract for them, and when it was all done they met to review it, both read the thing, both felt this was a great idea and had no objections to the terms, and then said, "Well, as long as we're both already here, and we've got the thing, and we've already paid for it, we might as well not bother signing it.".

Have you read ANY of the numerous articles on this case? Read any of the posts containing quotes and citations? My guess is "no" because if you had, you would not have to create scenarios out of your imagination - you would know the factual sequence of events - and what you wrote ain't it.

This really is very simple. If I present you with a contract and say to you "Please sign this contract" and the contract doesn't end up getting signed, we can probably describe your actions as refusing to sign the contract.

There are dozens of other interpretations that do not include his "refusal" to sign the contract he helped prepare. It could just as easily have been that they stupidly believed they didn't need the contract because they were so sure they were in full and forever agreement.

 

[RavenSky]

Neither of them signed the contract. We don't know why. Perhaps they were uncertain or perhaps THEY WERE VERY BUSY, VERY STRESSED OUT AND RELIED ON WHAT THE OTHER WAS TELLING THEM. You know: verbal contract. Plus the texts in which he said he wanted to help her have a baby. That sort of thing. This 'contract' you are so certain that they signed was between them and the hospital, not between one another. You cannot possibly be naive enough to believe that the lawyer was calling up Jacob and trying to convince him to sign. If Jacob did have doubts before the donation as he now claims, he kept those doubts to himself.

If they relied on what each other was telling them and there was a misunderstanding between the two of them about what the terms were, then there wasn't actually any verbal contract. He thought the terms were one thing and proceeded accordingly

But he DIDN'T "proceed accordingly". There has never ever been any question whatsoever that Karla fully intended to have the embryos implanted after her chemo treatments. That was the one and only reason they went through the entire in vitro fertilization process in the first place. I do not find his post break-up claims to the contrary to be at all credible. It appears the Judge did not either.

and she thought the terms were something else and proceeded accordingly. If they didn't both agree that there was a change made to the terms of their written agreement (and the appeals court which reversed the judge's ruling feels that it's a valid written legal contract between them, so I'll take their judgement of the matter over yours, since it's more likely that they have a better understanding of Illinois law than you do), then the terms of the original contract should remain in force.

You can take their opinion over ours, but perhaps you should actually know what their opinion really was. They did NOT rule that there was any sort of binding contract between the couple. They DID rule that the lower court Judge should have heard arguments from both sides on that point rather than issue a summary judgement. This does NOT mean they think Jacob's claims were credible. It means they think his claims should have been heard in full before being dismissed.

The judge made a horrible error by not only ignoring the two contracts in her ruling, but in not even making a ruling on the validity of the second contract one way or the other and that's what the retrial needs to focus on.

What "two contracts"? What "second contract"?

Moreover, the most recent ruling was exactly on the issue of whether there was a binding contract. We don't yet have a copy of her full decision, but we do know she heard all of Jacobs arguments regarding what are or aren't contracts and whether he should be bound by them or not... and she still ruled against him.

 

[RavenSky]

Again, the Illinois appeals court feels that it's a written contract.

Again, you are incorrect in how you are portraying what the appellate court said. They absolutely did not rule that there was a "written contract". They ruled that the lower court should have heard full arguments from both sides to determine IF there was a valid contract of any kind rather than dismissing the claims on summary judgement.

Do the Canadian courts have "summary judgements"? I'm not being snarky. I don't know that much about your court system.

summary judgment
n. a court order ruling that no factual issues remain to be tried and therefore a cause of action or all causes of action in a complaint can be decided upon certain facts without trial. A summary judgment is based upon a motion by one of the parties that contends that all necessary factual issues are settled or so one-sided they need not be tried.

bolding mine

This is what happened the first time before Judge Hall. There was never a trial. She granted a summary judgement in favor of Karla without a trial. The appellate court's decision said only that the lower court should have had the full trial to determine if there was a binding contract.