Also known as: frozen preembryo · frozen pre-embryos · cryopreserved preembryos · frozen embryos
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A cryogenically preserved product of in vitro fertilization that courts treat as a form of property subject to contract principles in disputes over possession and disposition rather than as a legal person. When progenitors have executed a prior agreement addressing disposition, courts generally enforce that agreement. Absent an agreement, courts balance the parties' interests and generally favor the party seeking to avoid procreation.
Freya Freeman and her former partner signed a cryopreservation consent form stating that any unused frozen preembryos would be donated to research upon divorce. After their marriage ended, Freya sought to implant the preembryos instead. The court enforced the written agreement and directed the clinic to proceed with donation.
Fatou Fall and her spouse executed a cryopreservation agreement with a fertility clinic that labeled the resulting frozen preembryos as the couple's property and authorized transfer on demand. When the clinic later refused to release the preembryos, the court applied the contract and ordered the clinic to surrender possession to the couple.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Felipe Figueroa died after creating frozen preembryos with his wife. She later sought to implant them and claim social security benefits for any resulting child. The court examined whether the preembryos could support posthumous parentage claims under state succession rules.
Fumiko Fujimoto sought to use frozen preembryos created during her marriage despite her former husband's objection and a changed family situation. The court declined to enforce prior consent forms that would have allowed implantation over the husband's current wishes.
Courts enforce the parties' written agreement as controlling. The agreement's characterization of the preembryos as the couple's property determines possession and transfer rights.
A court balances the progenitors' relative interests in using or not using the preembryos. The balance ordinarily favors the party who wishes to avoid procreation unless compelling circumstances exist.
No. Internal labels or policies that are not part of the signed agreement do not alter the contractual allocation of property rights and disposition authority to the couple.
No. Courts reject personhood analysis in contractual settings and instead apply ordinary property and contract rules to resolve control and possession questions.
A subsequent research contract between the clinic and a third party cannot divest the progenitors of vested disposition rights created by the earlier cryopreservation agreement.
…a more complicated matter. In A.Z. v. B.Z. , 431 Mass. 150 (2000), we considered certain issues surrounding the disposition of frozen preembryos. A woman sought to enforce written agreements between herself and her former husband. The wife argued that these agreements permitted her to implant frozen preembryos created with the…