1. Nature of Family Disputes in Reproductive Technologies

(A) Disputes over Embryo Ownership

Couples often disagree about what happens to frozen embryos after separation or divorce:

• Whether embryos can be destroyed
• Whether one partner can use them without consent
• Whether embryos count as property or potential life

(B) Surrogacy Conflicts

Issues arise between:

• Intended parents vs surrogate mother
• Payment disputes
• Custody of child after birth
• Cross-border surrogacy complications

(C) Donor Conception Disputes

• Right of donor anonymity vs child’s right to know biological origin
• Parental rights of donors vs legal parents

(D) Consent Withdrawal

• One partner agrees to IVF but later withdraws consent
• Disputes over whether pregnancy can proceed

(E) Posthumous Reproduction

• Use of sperm/embryos after death
• Inheritance rights of children born posthumously

2. Important Case Laws

1. Baby M Case (1988, USA)

In re Baby M (New Jersey Supreme Court)

Facts:

• A surrogate mother (Mary Beth Whitehead) agreed to carry a child for William Stern and his wife.
• After birth, she refused to give up the child.

Held:

• Surrogacy contract declared invalid as against public policy
• Surrogate mother recognized as legal mother
• Custody ultimately given to biological father due to best interests of child

Significance:

• First major case rejecting commercial surrogacy contracts
• Highlighted conflict between biology and contract law

2. Johnson v Calvert (1993, USA – California Supreme Court)

Facts:

• Egg from intended mother and sperm from intended father used in surrogate.
• Both surrogate and genetic mother claimed maternity.

Held:

• Genetic + intent-based parenthood recognized
• Intended parents declared legal parents

Significance:

• Introduced “intent doctrine” in surrogacy law
• Prioritised intention over gestation

3. Evans v United Kingdom (2007, European Court of Human Rights)

Facts:

• Woman had embryos frozen with partner.
• After separation, partner withdrew consent.
• Woman became infertile and wanted embryos used.

Held:

• Court upheld destruction of embryos
• Right of man to withdraw consent prevailed

Significance:

• Reinforced importance of ongoing consent in IVF
• Highlighted conflict between reproductive autonomy of two parties

4. Baby Manji Yamada v Union of India (2008, Supreme Court of India)

Facts:

• Japanese couple commissioned a surrogate in India.
• Couple divorced before child’s birth.
• Legal parentage became unclear.

Held:

• Child allowed to leave India with grandmother
• Recognised legal vacuum in Indian surrogacy law at the time

Significance:

• Exposed lack of regulation in Indian surrogacy framework
• Led to stronger legislative scrutiny of commercial surrogacy

5. Mennesson v France (2014, European Court of Human Rights)

Facts:

• French couple used surrogacy in USA.
• France refused to recognise legal parent-child relationship.

Held:

• Violation of children’s right to identity under Article 8 ECHR
• Biological father-child relationship must be recognised

Significance:

• Strengthened recognition of child’s identity rights in surrogacy
• Influenced cross-border surrogacy recognition laws

6. Re A (Conjoined Twins Case) – Ethical relevance to reproductive disputes (UK, 2000)

Facts:

• Not IVF-specific, but involved medical ethics and life decision-making for medically vulnerable children.

Held:

• Court allowed separation surgery, prioritising survival of one twin

Significance:

• Frequently cited in reproductive ethics discussions
• Demonstrates how courts balance medical autonomy, ethics, and best interests of child

7. (Additional Key Case) Kass v Kass (1998, USA – New York Court of Appeals)

Facts:

• Couple signed agreement regarding frozen embryos.
• Divorce occurred, dispute over embryo use.

Held:

• Written consent agreement enforced
• Embryos to be donated for research

Significance:

• Reinforced importance of written consent contracts in IVF

3. Key Legal Principles Emerging from These Cases

(1) Consent is Central

• Evans v UK and Kass v Kass show that ongoing, informed consent governs IVF outcomes

(2) Intent vs Biology

• Johnson v Calvert introduced intent-based parenthood
• Biology alone is not always decisive

(3) Best Interest of Child

• Baby M and Baby Manji cases emphasize child welfare as overriding factor

(4) Contract vs Public Policy

• Baby M shows surrogacy contracts may be invalid if exploitative

(5) Child Identity Rights

• Mennesson case recognises child’s right to legal identity and parentage

(6) Legal Vacuum Issues

• Baby Manji case shows absence of regulation leads to judicial intervention

4. Conclusion

Family disputes involving reproductive technologies reflect a shift in modern family law from traditional biological parenthood to a complex framework involving:

• Medical science
• Contract law
• Human rights
• Ethical considerations
• Child welfare principles

Courts across jurisdictions increasingly rely on intent, consent, and best interests of the child rather than purely genetic or gestational definitions of parenthood.