Perry-Rogers v. Fasano Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 45,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Perry-Rogers v. Fasano, 715 N.Y.S.2d 19 (2000)
In vitro fertilization has created new legal challenges in terms of child custody and visitation. In Perry-Rogers versus Fasano, the court sorted through the legal challenges that arose after a child was born as the result of an in vitro fertilization mistake.
In 1998, Deborah Perry-Rogers and Robert Rogers started an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer program at a fertility center in New York. The center took embryos with the Rogerses’ genetic material and implanted them into the uterus of Donna Fasano along with embryos with the Fasanos’ genetic material.
The center notified both couples about the error and said DNA and amniocentesis tests were needed. The Rogerses tried to contact the Fasanos. The Fasanos didn’t respond.
Later that year, Donna gave birth to two boys. The Fasanos named one child Vincent Fasano. He was white and the Fasanos’ biological son. The Fasanos named the other Joseph Fasano. He was black, and DNA testing later confirmed he was the Rogerses’ biological son. He was eventually renamed Akeil Richard Rogers. After Donna gave birth, the Fasanos still didn’t take any action regarding the center’s error.
When the Rogerses found out, they brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment on the rights, obligations, and relationship of the couples concerning Akeil.
For the first five months of Akeil’s life, the Fasanos only allowed Deborah two brief visits with her son. The Fasanos wouldn’t agree to relinquish custody of Akeil until the couples executed a written agreement allowing the Fasanos visitations with Akeil multiple days a month, a week each summer, and alternating holidays. The agreement had a liquidated damages clause entitling the Fasanos to $200,000 if their visitation rights were violated. Deborah felt like she had to sign the visitation agreement if she wanted custody of her son.
The Fasanos also acknowledged the Rogerses were Akeil’s genetic parents and signed affidavits consenting to a custody order for the Rogerses and an amendment to Akeil’s birth certificate naming the Rogerses as his biological and legal parents. The Fasanos then turned over custody of Akeil.
The Rogerses then sought a declaratory judgment naming them as Akeil’s legal and biological parents, granting them sole custody, and permitting an amendment to Akeil’s birth certificate to reflect his biological heritage. The court granted the judgment, ordered a full psychological evaluation of both couples and their infants, and granted the Fasanos visitation every other weekend. The Rogerses challenged the visitation order. The Fasanos appealed the custody order.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.com/cases/perry-r...
The Quimbee App features over 45,900 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/perry-r...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our RUclips Channel ► ruclips.net/user/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries