today the world has more than six million kids who their birth are required to the doctors. In our country, these children are already hundreds of thousands, as in the Russian clinics IVF has been used for more than thirty years.
From this point of view, the situation is studied, the Supreme court looked almost standard – the couple could not conceive a child and went to a medical institution.
the Supreme court explained the benefits of the heirs at law
Few people know, but when such medical intervention, without exception, all medical institutions require prospective parents to design a large number of documents. In our case it was: the wife of set, where applicable, signature. But signed for herself and for her husband. The fact that her husband gave her power of attorney to execute all necessary papers. Among them, in particular, the paper on the husband’s consent to use donor material, if the material rejected by the doctors. Procedure with biomaterial husband didn’t yield positive result. Then the wife decided to use a donor.
In the end, all ended successfully and the light appeared long-awaited child. It was a girl. The Registrar, when making the birth certificate, the wife recorded the baby’s father her husband. But then something went wrong. Man after a while learned that the child is not biologically his. And then he went to court with a claim of paternity.
In the end a long legal battle, the dispute had to learn the Supreme court. And its clarification is important for those who may encounter a similar situation.
so the couple, who cannot conceive children, can seek specialized fertility clinic. Procedure called in vitro fertilization. Below her, a flat-screto isometsa, you must sign a special document called “informed consent”. Abbreviated IDS.
the couple turned to the local medical clinic for the IVF procedure. The wife was engaged in registration of all documents, including signed consent on behalf of the husband by a power of attorney.
a Married woman may use in vitro only with the written and personal consent of spouse
First in the lawsuit, and later in the courtroom, the man claimed to have granted a power of attorney with one goal – to become a biological parent of the child. And the wife, together with the doctors of the clinic, had the procedure without his knowledge or consent.
Defendants was not only the wife, and the clinic. They did not dispute the fact that the child was born without the use of the material husband. Not confirmed what was said about the spouse of the donor material.
the Courts with the arguments of the husband disagreed and sided with the defendants. The courts explained their refusal in satisfaction of the claim because the claimant knew about all methods of assisted reproductive technology and personally gave his wife a notarized power of attorney without any restrictions.
Therefore, the local courts concluded that the plaintiff assumed the rights and obligations of raising and supporting children are born.
the Indignant man appealed the refusals to the Supreme court. And the high court with his arguments and agreed.
the Supreme court clarified how to divide assets in a divorce
the Supreme court recalled that a married woman can use the method of artificial insemination or embryo transfer only with the written consent of the spouse. It must be personal. And such agreement in our case, her husband did not give. In the case there is no evidence that the plaintiff had the intention to take the help of a donor. In contrast, in the materials there is a personally signed statement, which refers to the use of the biomaterial.
the Legislation allows that the couple may use a donor material, and it does not deprive them of the status of the parents. One of the main criteria of legitimacy of any medical intervention including IVF is decorated proper informed consent. In the case of spouses, which evaluated the Supreme court that it was signed by proxy.
it is Impossible to convey by power of attorney the right to consent to medical intervention, said the Supreme court. And the court noticed that the issue goes far beyond disputes about the determination of parental rights or responsibilities in the application of assisted reproductive technologies.
the Main idea of the Supreme court – like the harmony – IDS can be issued to prospective parents in person and not by proxy.
