Jacob Szafranski Case Study

| Given the contentious debate surrounding issues of procreation, develop an institutional policy, which can be applied to the range of treatment and research issues related to procreation.

Judgement/Disposition: Yes, the order of the Appellate Division that invalidated the ESDC’s determination was reversed, with costs, and the petitions were dismissed.

Procedural Facts: In May 2010, a couple of months after Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski donated his sperm and have eight eggs fertilized for freezing, Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski sent Defendant Karla Dunston a text message ending the relationship. In August 2010, two months after the relationship ended, Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski filed a pro se complaint in the circuit court of Cook County. Plaintiff Jacob Szafranski sought to keep Defendant Karla Dunston from using the frozen pre-embryos so he was not forced to father a child against his will. Defendant Karla Dunston ended up counterclaiming and asking the court to grant her sole custody and control over the pre-embryos so she could someday use the pre-embryos to bear her children. Defendant Karla Dunston sited breach of contract and asked the court for relief under promissory estoppel. The circuit court ended up siding with Defendant Karla Dunston by granting her full custody and control over the use of the frozen pre-embryos.

The laws on the books and consequent court choices identifying with them have, after some time, been fixing to two inquiries: whether ladies have the privilege to have premature births, and when does an unborn youngster have a case to privileges of its own. The point of interest choice Roe v. Wade from 1973 goes far in characterizing who gets rights and when. As indicated by the choice composed by Justice Blackmun, the privilege to premature birth is guarded by the fourteenth Amendment. The content of the revision particularly utilizes "conceived" in the criteria to qualify somebody for the security rights ensured in the correction. At the point when the ethical issue of when another life starts is disregarded, it refutes any rights that a gathering of cells and/or baby could have. (Blackmun) However, Roe versus Wade additionally puts the confinement that, at one point (typically in the third trimester of pregnancy), the unborn youngster achieves a state of feasibility which allows it the privilege not to be prematurely ended, aside from cases of assault or interbreeding or if having the child is perilous to the mother. (Blackmun) The rights and cutoff points set out in Roe versus Wade speak to what the vast majority in America think about fetus removal, paying little respect to what they think about it ethically. (Gallup) Roe v. Wade isn't the main huge Supreme Court case

ISSUES -- Does the plaintiff deserved to be heard at a trial by a jury? Did the trial court acted righteously by dismissing the case in pretrial hearing? Did this decision damaged the plaintiff?

Procedural History: Plaintiff filed for divorce on January 2013 and sue for custody or visitation right to the child in Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The Supreme Court determined without a hearing that the plaintiff lack standing because she was not the biological or adoptive parent of the child and gave sole custody to the defendant. The Plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Division.

Whether the circuit court erred by denying Johnson’s motion to exclude documents under Md. Rule 5-901.

Whether the circuit court erred in considering parol evidence to determine whether the B108 document was a contract.

On appeal, Father challenges the circuit court’s decision on his motion to modify custody, the circuit court’s denial of his motion to modify child-support, the circuit court’s decisions finding him in contempt and failing to hold Mother in contempt, and the grant court’s grant of attorney’s fees to Mother. Specifically, Father presents four questions for our review, which we rephrase as follows:

In this case study a couple by the name of Michelle and Brian Clifford decided to conceive a child after a few years of the marriage. After five years of trying with no results they consulted a fertility expert and it was found that Michelle was unable to have children naturally so they decided to try IVF treatments. Michelle’s eggs were harvested and introduced to Brain’s sperm in the laboratory. After a few days four embryos were implanted into Michelle and the other seven were placed in a freezer for further use. The first IVF procedure was unsuccessful and during the following years of the IVF treatments Michelle’s and Brian were having marital issues. They filed for divorce and Brian wanted to donate the embryos for research and Michelle

The father reported that they have been litigating for two years. He tried to negotiate for two years. He told her she can win, do what is best for Hudson. The father stated that the child should have both parents in his life. She wanted him to have no time with the child. He indicated that the parents was with Lannie Resnick. He indicated that they worked with Ms. Resnick from June to July of 2014. He believed they made no progress. He believes Ms. Resnick did not want a structured program of access. The father stated that Ms. Resnick stated that he could see the child over the summer however, there would be no overnights. He indicated that Ms. Resnick wanted the overnights to be based on how the child was doing. The father stated that he did not agree with no overnights. He wanted to have overnights with an

The court ruled that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was correct for the promissory estoppels claim. The plaintiff’s breach of contract claim case was remanded back to the lower court for further determination.

Both parties were found to be negligent and the trial court ruled the plaintiff was barred from recovery due to her own negligence. The Plaintiff then appealed.

Rule: In this case, the rule of law that was used to make the decision was rules surrounding contractual provisions, “even when the trial judge adopts proposed findings verbatim, the findings are those of the court and may be reversed only if clearly erroneous” and also the conflict of law principles of

FACTS: T and V are husband and wife. They entered into a surrogacy agreement with V’s sister, D to implant in D an embryo created from T’s sperm and V’s egg. A successful pregnancy resulted and Baby R was born in February 2009. Two months earlier in December 2008 T, V, and D petitioned the Porter County Juvenile Court to establish paternity and maternity of the unborn child. The father, T, was able to establish paternity at that time simply by filling out an affidavit. The mother, V, was statutorily unable to prove maternity and her petition was denied. This is a case of first impression in this State.