A.Z. v. B.Z.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 2000 · Contracts

725 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2000)

Updated July 26, 2026

ContractsIVFpreembryoscryopreservationconsent formpublic policyforced procreationfamily relationships

Facts

A married couple underwent IVF treatment, resulting in twin daughters and one remaining vial containing four frozen preembryos. Before egg retrievals, they signed clinic consent forms; the governing 1991 form, filled in by the wife after the husband signed it in blank, stated that if they became separated the preembryos would be returned to the wife for implantation. After the marriage deteriorated, the parties separated, the husband filed for divorce, and the wife sought to use the remaining preembryos to have additional children. The husband sought and obtained a permanent injunction preventing her from using them.

Issue

Whether a clinic consent form providing that frozen preembryos would be returned to the wife for implantation if the parties became separated was enforceable in a divorce dispute over the husband's present objection. More broadly, whether Massachusetts courts may enforce an agreement that would compel one donor to become a parent against his or her will.

Rule

A consent form concerning frozen preembryos will not be enforced as a contract between donors where it is legally insufficient to show a binding agreement between them in the circumstances presented. Moreover, as a matter of Massachusetts public policy, courts will not enforce an agreement that would compel one donor to become a parent against his or her contemporaneous objection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Boston, Elena Cruz and Martin Shea underwent IVF while married and signed a separate written agreement stating that if they later divorced, Elena could use any frozen preembryos for implantation. Three years later, after their divorce, Elena seeks implantation and Martin expressly objects to becoming a parent to any resulting child.

If a Massachusetts court follows the majority rule of this case, what is the most likely result?

Explanation. The majority held that even an unambiguous agreement between donors will not be enforced if doing so would force one donor to become a parent against his or her present objection. The court rejected compelled parenthood on public-policy grounds, rather than adopting a general balancing approach.