## Facts

- William E. Kane, age 48, committed suicide on October 30, 1991, and was survived by two adult children from a prior marriage.
- For about five years before his death, Kane cohabited with Deborah E. Hecht.
- Shortly before his death, Kane deposited 15 vials of sperm with California Cryobank, Inc.
- Kane signed a specimen storage agreement directing that, upon his death, the specimens be stored or released upon request of the estate’s executor, and separately authorized Cryobank to release the specimens to Hecht and her physician.
- Kane executed a will naming Hecht as executor and specifically bequeathing the frozen sperm to her, stating his wish that she have the option to conceive his child.
- Kane also left letters indicating the sperm was stored to give Hecht the option of bearing his child after his death.
- In probate proceedings, Kane’s children requested that the estate administrator seek destruction of the sperm on public policy grounds.
- The administrator petitioned for instructions; Hecht opposed, asserting a legally protected interest under the will and agreements.
- The probate court ordered the personal representative to destroy the sperm; Hecht sought writ relief, and the Court of Appeal stayed the destruction order pending review.

## Issues

1. Whether the probate court abused its discretion by ordering destruction of the cryopreserved sperm on an incomplete record.
2. Whether the decedent had a legally cognizable, property-like control interest in stored sperm sufficient to permit testamentary disposition.
3. Whether California public policy prohibits posthumous artificial insemination by an unmarried woman using a deceased man’s sperm under these circumstances.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal granted a peremptory writ and vacated the order requiring destruction of the sperm.
- The court held the destruction order was an abuse of discretion in the procedural posture because key factual and legal questions (including intent and document interpretation) were unresolved and destruction would be irreversible.
- The court recognized the decedent’s decisional/control authority over his sperm as a property-like interest sufficient to support testamentary transfer and to require serious consideration of his expressed intent.
- The court found no clear statutory or decisional California public policy barring posthumous insemination or use by an unmarried woman in these circumstances.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including consideration of the will and contractual arrangements.

## Legal Principles

- A probate court abuses its discretion by ordering irreversible destruction of disputed reproductive material without resolving material issues bearing on the decedent’s intent and the governing instruments.
- Stored sperm may be subject to a limited, property-like control interest grounded in procreative decision-making, supporting testamentary disposition.
- Courts should give effect to a decedent’s expressed reproductive intent through wills and related agreements unless prohibited by statute or clearly established public policy.
- Absent clear authority, courts should not create broad public policy prohibitions against posthumous conception through probate orders; such policy choices are for the Legislature.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal vacated the probate court’s destruction order, holding that the decedent’s expressed intent and property-like control interest in his stored sperm required further consideration and that no clear California public policy categorically barred posthumous use by the named beneficiary.


Hecht v. Superior Court, 16 Cal. App. 4th 836 (Ct. App. 1993)