A deeply personal and emotionally complex legal battle has come to an end for a divorced Michigan couple, as the state Supreme Court declined to hear a dispute over a frozen embryo created during their marriage.
This decision leaves lingering questions about reproductive rights, parental autonomy, and legal precedent.
Sarah and David Markiewicz, both in their 40s, created the embryo through in vitro fertilization before their 2020 divorce.
The couple had four children together, three of whom were conceived using Sarah’s sister’s eggs and David’s sperm through IVF.
The legal dispute centered on whether Sarah should be allowed to implant the remaining embryo, which she believes is her last chance to have a genetically related child.
David opposed the implantation, arguing it would force him into unwanted parenthood.
On Friday (April 25), the Michigan Supreme Court issued an order stating it was “not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this court.”
The decision lets stand a lower court ruling that sided with David — a decision originally made by a Macomb County judge and upheld 2-1 by the Court of Appeals.
Sarah’s attorney, Nicholas Curcio, had urged the court to consider the “significant financial cost of restarting the IVF process” and allow the implantation.
David’s attorney, Trish Haas, said her client is “grateful” this is over “after almost five years.”
“My client is relieved that this saga is finally behind him. It’s been a long road and it’s been stressful,” Haas said. “I do believe that they reached the right decision.”
The ACLU also responded to the court’s decision, saying: “We’re pleased that the lower court ruling stands. No one should be forced into parenthood.”
Justice Brian Zahra stated that legislators, not the court, should address questions surrounding frozen embryos and in vitro fertilization.
“Our Legislature is the appropriate body to decide the weighty policy questions presented not just in this case but also by the science of in vitro fertilization more generally,” Zahra said. “I call on the Legislature to address these issues and not abdicate its policy-making function to this court through inaction.”
Zahra stated that the core legal question is how human embryos, frozen or otherwise, should be classified and treated, saying: “This question implicates some of the most perplexing debates in society, invoking deep-seated and conflicting beliefs about morality, ethics, religion, human life and personal autonomy.”
Attorney and legal analyst Neil Rockind called the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case “disappointing” and “scary.”
“The Michigan Supreme Court is supposed to resolve legal issues, cases, and controversies for Michigan citizens,” Rockind said. “The concern where the Supreme Court punts or says we’re not going to decide this issue is that it leaves the issue undecided by the highest court in the state, which means that there’s still a question as to what the status of the law is.”
Rockind said cases involving frozen embryos are uniquely emotional and morally fraught, and cases like these are “always going to be thorny.”
“I sympathize and I see the interest of both of the parties in this case,” he said. “There are going to be no really clean, easy-to-decide set of facts. Someone’s heart is going to be broken, and someone is going to feel as though their choice is not being acknowledged.”
He added that while this case is over for this couple, other Michigan families may soon find themselves in similar conflicts, with no higher court guidance to rely on.
“For this couple, it’s done. There’s nowhere else to go,” Rockind said. “Now, other couples have to attempt to read the Court of Appeals opinion in this case, and the trial court opinion, and rely on them. There’s no statute that addresses this.”
