This case challenged a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Justice to refuse Ms. Castles’ access to in vitro fertilization (“IVF”) treatment, while she was in a low security prison. Prior to her imprisonment for social security fraud, Ms. Castles was undergoing IVF treatment. Although she was sentenced to only 18 months of imprisonment, Ms. Castles was nearing the age at which IVF would no longer be available to her. Ms.
The Act provides for parentage in case of donor-assisted human reproduction (“DAHR”) (Part 2), issues relating to DAHR facilities (including acquisition of gametes by operators) (Part 3), and amendments to the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 (Part 4), Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976, the Status of Children Act 1987, Family Law Act 1995, and among other legislation, to reflect rights and responsibilities of spouses or civil partners of biological parents and to take into account DAHR situations.
Medically assisted reproduction is available only to married couples, or those in a registered partnership or cohabitation.
Law No. 2021-1017 of 2 August 2021 on bioethics in France marks a significant step forward for single women and LGBT rights by extending access to Medically Assisted Procreation (MAP) to these previously excluded groups. Prior to this reform, MAP was only available to heterosexual couples facing medical infertility. The new law allows all women, whether in a heterosexual or lesbian couple or single, to benefit from these assisted reproductive techniques.
The plaintiff’s employee health benefit plan denied coverage for certain infertility procedures that can only be performed on women, including in vitro fertilization (“IVF”). She sued her employer for unlawful discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and state law. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant-employer.
Mr and Mrs Y entered into a surrogacy agreement with Mr and Mrs Z following unsuccessful IVF treatments. An embryo was created using Mrs Z and Mr Y’s DNA and was transferred to Mrs Z in May 2018. When Mrs Z was five months pregnant, Mr Y died. X was born in 2019. As part of the surrogacy agreement, Mr and Mrs Y were to apply for a parental order immediately after the birth of the child. Given Mr Y’s sudden death prior to, the birth certificate named Mr Z as the father. Mrs Y wanted to have Mr Y recognised as the father.
The law governs agreements between the intended parents and a surrogate (the person who carries the pregnancy). The law allows for the use of the intended parents’ sperm and egg, or an egg from a donor other than the surrogate. The agreement must be approved by a special committee.
The Supreme Court was asked to rule whether a father-child relationship could be legally recognized in the case where a child’s mother became pregnant through in-vitro fertilization with the frozen sperm of a deceased husband who, while he was alive, had consented to the use of the sperm even after his death. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s ruling and declined to recognize the father-child relationship. The Supreme Court considered that the legal framework in Japan concerning parent-child relationships did not anticipate such a relationship between a father and his c
A Japanese married couple petitioned for a court order that a Japanese local government accept birth registers for twins born from a surrogate mother in Nevada with the ovum and sperm of the Japanese couple. The state of Nevada, pursuant to its state court, had issued birth certificates for the twins, which showed the Japanese couple as their parents. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s ruling that the birth registers need to be accepted. It stated that Article 118 of the Japanese Civil Proceedings Act prescribes that a final judgment made by a foreign court takes
