San Francisco, California, UNITED STATES
Stephen Findley and Mimi Lee had big plans when they wed… He was a Harvard-educated executive at a Bay Area global wealth management firm, worth millions. She studied piano at Julliard, earned degrees from Harvard and became a doctor specializing in neuroscience.
However, on the eve of their September 2010 wedding, Lee was diagnosed with cancer and anticipating aggressive treatment expected to render her infertile, the couple rushed to UCSF’s fertility center, where five of Lee’s embryos — fertilized by Findley — were cryogenically frozen and preserved for a possible future with offspring. [Howard Mintz, Contra Costa Times.]
Now, the couple is in the midst of a bitter divorce — and those embryos, still stored at UCSF, are at the heart of an unprecedented legal battle that could determine how California deals with such conflicts.
This week in San Francisco Superior Court, a judge is conducting a trial set to begin Monday that pits Findley’s wish to have the embryos destroyed against Lee’s quest to preserve them as her only way to bear a child.
In Lee’s case, her lawyers are urging Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo to find that destroying the embryos would destroy an infertile woman’s ability to “realize the fundamental and constitutionally protected bond of a parent and a child.”
Findley’s position is that the couple signed documents at UCSF that included provisions for destroying the embryos under various circumstances, including divorce, and those agreements are a binding contract. In addition, Findley has testified in pretrial proceedings that he would be troubled psychologically by having a child produced from the embryos, and worries about forced parenting obligations, even though Lee has offered assurances she will not seek financial support if the embryos produce a child.
UCSF, meanwhile, is caught in the middle, but appears to take the position that its signed directives should be considered “valid and enforceable” by the courts. “A party cannot simply change his or her mind at any time and unilaterally revoke a directive created … with another party, at least not without some material change in circumstances or other compelling reason.”
Both Lee and Findley are expected to take the stand this week to tell their stories. They’ve already settled the financial part of their divorce. Now comes the hard part. In addition, Lee’s legal team indicated whatever the San Francisco judge decides, higher courts will have the final say.
“This court,” Lee’s lawyers wrote recently, “must decide whether the law forbids Mimi from using her eggs, which she froze and fertilized for the purpose of preserving her fertility after being diagnosed with cancer, in order to have a child where she is otherwise unable to do so, simply because her ex-husband objects.” [SF Chronicle]
Litigation typically involves an Inquiry into the assets of each of the parties in a lawsuit. Any asset investigation should include the expertise of a private investigator and the unique resources they can access for the parties and attorneys on each side. www.assetsearchpro.com can help you with this important service.
Being knowledgeable about the specific nuances of the numerous information brokers and their databases is critical for anyone engaged in public record data research. An expert investigator who is adept at accessing this data has a broad range of important information readily available. However, one must have both the knowledge and experience required to access the full scope of the public records information network.
Go to www.assetsearchpro.com or call (800) 775-6132.
Filed under:Asset Searches, Blog, Private Detective, Private Investigator, Professional People Search Private Investigator,
The accuracy of data submitted by the requestor will directly determine the accuracy of results obtained. While the information we furnish is from reliable sources, its accuracy is not guaranteed. Use of available data may be affected by the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA"), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Graham-Leach-Bliley Act, and/or federal and state privacy laws. Our investigative reports are prepared by Asset Search Pro, at the specific instance and request of our clients. Clients agree by accepting our reports that reports and information received from Asset Search Pro, are strictly confidential, and are intended solely for our client's sole private, exclusive use. Any other use, communication, publication or reproduction of our reports, or any portion thereof, without the written consent of Asset Search Pro, is strictly forbidden. By ordering and accepting delivery of this report, our client agrees to indemnify Asset Search Pro, against any damages or claims resulting from any such unauthorized use. Our reports are not a recommendation, endorsement or approval of any kind, with respect to any specific transaction, decision or evaluation, and should not be relied on as such under any circumstances. All information contained in our reports is confidential and proprietary, i.e., our work product, hence our property as provider of our reports.
No warranty or guarantee of a particular outcome, result or recovery of information is promised or implied by Asset Search Pro, or by the materials presented on Assetsearchpro.com. Asset Search Pro agrees to work to achieve the goals of any client work or engagement with aggressive, professional methods, within the bounds of the law.