As technology’s digits crawl through the nooks and crannies of our physical world and cyberspace, the legal consequences and questions emerging keep even us non-IP lawyers quite busy. Considering assisted reproductive technology (“ART”), family law was the premier practice area for getting caught in ART’s web. Few lawyers realized the effects ART would have on estate planning and, even as the effects became clear, only a fraction of states passed laws providing legal guidance.
Fortunately, Illinois is a state that considered ART in its laws and included laws for in vitro fertilization in the Parentage Act. Additionally, the Probate Act states that children born after a parent’s death (“posthumous” children) are to be considered having been born during the parent’s lifetime. So, what does all this technolegalese mean?
Well, in terms of inheritance and/or estate planning laws, it means conversations should be had between Illinois spouses if conception is a challenge or an impossibility for one or both spouses.* The conversations are necessary because of 2 vital estate planning tools often used by couples, Health Care Powers of Attorney (“HCPOA”) and Property Powers of Attorney (“PPOA”), which can also provide instruction for ART cases. Yes, lawyers love acronyms.
In Illinois, a posthumous child born via ART typically emerges in 1 of 3 ways:
- Use of frozen sperm;
- Use of a frozen embryo; or
- Use of a frozen egg.
Furthermore, obtaining frozen sperm or eggs may not only occur after incapacity but also may occur after death, which is when estate planning mechanisms are triggered.
When creating an estate plan, couples usually consider a bunch of “what ifs,” e.g., “what if I become disabled while we’re still in the “prime” of our lives and haven’t had kids yet?” A HCPOA is a tool that requires making those decisions but, consequently, eases the fears associated with the “what ifs.” Accordingly, when considering ART, a HCPOA could, for example, authorize the implantation of frozen sperm or eggs. Of course, other considerations would naturally follow, such as, how one abled-parent and one disabled parent would raise a child. Still, ART combined with the law creates a reasonable and protected possibility for having a family, when that likelihood, outside of adoption, didn’t exist before.
Another equally interesting issue relates to the PPOA. But, you say, “That’s about property.” Yes, it is. In a 1993 California decision, Hecht v. Superior Court, which is used by several states, the Court determined that frozen genetic reproductive material, such as sperm and eggs, is property for the purpose of leaving a gift in a will (aka “devise”). Here, you might think the conversation would be easy – women can leave their eggs to their partners; but, not so fast. What if the eggs are frozen, then the relationship is legally dissolved, the donor spouse remarries, and then passes away? Who gets the eggs if the second spouse doesn’t want any (more) kids? She could disclaim them and pass them to her descendants or siblings; that would be interesting. The future brothers and sisters of the former partner? Should the reproductive material be destroyed? Who do you think should get the eggs?
* The term “spouses” and “partners” are interchanged in this context because the terms are synonymous in Illinois law.