The complex case, involving Oregon’s multimillionaire philanthropist, Jordan Schnitzer, his ex-girlfriend, Cory Sause, and their genetically related son, has finally been given a verdict by the Oregon Supreme Court on November 28, 2023.
This case was constituted by a peculiar twist due to the unusual agreement between Schnitzer and Sause. In their arrangement, Schnitzer would receive any male embryos formed from Sause’s eggs, and Sause would receive any female embryos. A bitter dispute broke out when Sause and Schnitzer ended their relationship before Schnitzer’s son was born in December 2015. You can read the court’s ruling here. The outcome is complex and hinged on a myriad of factors, including the interpretation of the agreement between Schnitzer and Sause, Oregon’s donor statute updates, and considerations around assisted reproductive technology.
Sause argued that she only renounced her custodial rights, not rights to her offspring, from the male embryos. Schnitzer, on the other hand, contended this was merely a drafting oversight. It raises questions regarding the clarity and precision of legal agreements in instances of assisted reproductive technology, reflecting the need for specialized legal advice.
The trial court initially favored Sause, mainly relying upon the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Lehr v. Robertson. However, the Oregon Court of Appeals later reversed this, declaring that Sause was not a parent. Critical to their decision was that a biological connection does not inherently confer parental rights, but presents merely an opportunity to develop them.
An additional complexity was introduced during the legal battle as Oregon updated its donor laws in 2018 to include provisions for egg and embryo donation. Schnitzer proposed that the new law could be used to determine parental status in his case, adding further layers to the interpretation.
The Oregon Supreme Court, with input from the AAAA (Academy of Adoption and Assisted Reproduction Attorneys), RESOLVE: the National Infertility Association and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, dismissed Sause’s contentions. The court concluded that in cases of assisted reproduction, mere biological connection does not grant parental rights, and the updated donor statute has no stand.
While the court did not accept Sause as a legal parent, it did acknowledge the possibility of her having enforceable, nonparental, contract rights. However, this topic remains under-explored by Oregon courts, leading the Supreme Court to remand to the trial court for another evaluation.
The ruling received a positive response from notable legal practitioners in the field of assisted reproductive technology law, including Robin Pope. It provides clarity on parentage in cases involving assisted reproduction and emphasizes the importance of a specialized legal understanding in such intricate arrangements.