An IVF ethics article titled Ex-husband describes bitterness in fight over frozen embryos describes what can only be referred to as a nightmare regarding an invitro fertilization legal dispute between himself and his ex-wife, surrounding the custody of the IVF embryo himself and his now ex wife agreed to create during their marriage. First the details (emphasis mine):
A man fighting his ex-wife’s attempt to bear children with the couple’s frozen embryos testified Tuesday that in the bitterness of their breakup, she suggested that he should pay millions for the embryos if she couldn’t use them, and later threatened to poison the children’s minds against him.
A real piece of work this lady is, she’s trying to leverage her husband for millions and threatening to lie to her own children about their father if he doesn’t pay up. Not exactly the ideal candidate for invitro fertilization if you ask me, and with the resting bitch face she’s offering up in the image above one as to wonder if her body was ever even capable of ivf egg retrieval at any point in her life, moreover one wonders why any man would pick this winner to reproduce with in the first place, she looks as if she will summarily decapitate any man that inseminates her and use his head as a source of nutrients for her young.
Stephen Findley is seeking to enforce a contract he signed with his wife, Mimi Lee, shortly after their marriage in September 2010. Lee was diagnosed with breast cancer just before the wedding, and the couple, fearing her treatment would cause infertility, used in vitro fertilization to produce five frozen embryos.
But they signed an agreement with the UCSF Center for Reproductive Health that said the embryos would be thawed and discarded if the couple divorced. Findley filed for divorce in August 2013, and Lee, now cancer-free but infertile, contends the agreement was not binding and would violate her right to procreate.
In his second day of testimony in San Francisco Superior Court, Findley, a well-to-do investment analyst, described a phone conversation with Lee a few weeks after their separation when they discussed financial support and she brought up the subject of the embryos, which he wanted destroyed.
“I didn’t think, perhaps naively, that the embryos were an issue in the divorce,” Findley said. He said Lee then asked, “How much are those worth? Do I get $1 million for those? Do I get $2 million for those? Or for each one?”
Findley said they later had friendlier conversations. He said Lee provided emotional support after his mother died in June 2014, and they tried to understand each other’s views on the embryos — Lee had her heart set on bearing her own biological child, while Findley didn’t want a parental connection to a child he would have little or no part in raising. But he said the subject turned bitter after Lee took the issue to court.
In their last phone conversation in September, Findley said, he told Lee they might have to sell the jointly owned San Francisco condominium where she was living. He said she then asked him to give her the condo, since he had more money than she did.
“She said that if we have kids from these embryos, you should be worried about what I’ll say to them if you’re not generous to me,” Findley said.
Lee, a former anesthesiologist who is now pursuing a career as a concert pianist, is scheduled to testify later this week. Cross-examining Findley, her lawyer, Peter Skinner, sought to discredit his narrative that Lee had been so abusive during the divorce proceedings that he can no longer communicate with her and doesn’t trust her to involve him in their children’s lives. As Findley put it, “I felt stepped on and run over.”
This gold digging harpy is a degreed anesthesiologist, and she’s demanding millions from her ex-husband for the destruction of these ivf embryos as well as demanding that he simply gift her a condominium. Frozen embryo transfer is not something that should lead a man toward potential financial ruin. In Vitro fertilization techniques should be contractually bound to whatever agreement was established before ivf egg retrieval and certainly not after embryo transfer takes place. This is simple really, the only reason the contract didn’t stay binding regarding the ivf embryo is because a woman was involved… period.
Findley is walking on crutches after breaking a bone in his foot playing soccer in May. The day after the injury, Skinner pointed out, Findley e-mailed Lee asking for help in finding a surgeon. “Hi Mimi,” he began before asking her to share her medical knowledge and ending with “Thanks.”
Although the divorce proceedings are final, including financial support, Skinner also noted that Findley could owe child support if Lee gave birth. Findley said he wasn’t concerned about the money but about involvement in a future child’s life, and about “my fear that Mimi would manipulate that situation to extract money from me for other purposes.”
As if that horror story isn’t enough ill repost a section of a previous post on cases of IVF paternity fraud Taken directly from the article; A call for Routine DNA Tests as IVF Paternity Fraud goes Rampant
Everyone is happy with technology. Life has become a lot easier with all the advancements we see around. But one medical process is evoking numerous controversies, both legal and religious. Intro vitro fertilization (IVF) has lead to several legal procedures, so complex that the legal panels always find issues whose process of evaluation goes beyond the written law. This is more so with paternity fraud rates getting higher.
Given the process doesn’t involve direct sexual contact between the mother and the sperm donor, fraud has found it’s way into most corners of the procedure, with many fathers losing their children or raising other men’s children unknowingly. There are more complex cases.
One father relates that losing your child to such a fraud makes you feel like a being a father of an abducted child; you face bereavement for a child who is still alive somewhere.
The victim who is a lecturer and businessman in England was tricked into believing that the baby his ex-wife had conceived through an IVF treatment in Spain was his child. The sperm used was a sample from the mother’s former boyfriend. The mother, a successful businesswoman has been ordered by court to pay the man about a total of £100,000 as refund for legal bills, some housing expenses and compensation for emotional harm; she was however not ordered to pay £60,000 she had received for child maintenance after separation even though it was passed that she had committed “clear deceit and fraud”, knowing clearly well the man was not the child’s real father. Case law passed that in such cases, child maintenance payments could not be recovered.
So let me guess, The “former boyfriend” was an alpha type, likely not with a lot of money, but most likely with the ability to give her some other compensation, of the sexual variety. The other man, the one who was defrauded out of $60K in child support bills was a “nice guy”… The poor guy didn’t stand a chance. As much as I cant stand the pua’s, they have managed to come up with what I think is the most appropriate phrase here.
“Alpha fucks beta Bucks” I believe is the correct phrasing.
Theres a lesson to learn here folks. If you’re one of these men thinking about ivf, before you start discussing anything, whether it be intrauterine insemination, your surrogates ovulation calendar, the IVF embryos etc. Simply make sure that before all of that is established, before you ever make a test tube baby, that your contract is rock solid, that paternity after the fact is established, and that she absolutely cannot bring any viable ivf embryo to term without your express consent.