Annuling a marriage due to non-disclosure of information

[Cheyanngirl1210]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Jersey

If a wife suspects she is a carrier of the gene for cystic fibrosis, and she did not tell her husband until she found out she was pregnant and now has to miscarry , can the husband annul the marriage?

 

[mistoffolees]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Jersey

If a wife suspects she is a carrier of the gene for cystic fibrosis, and she did not tell her husband until she found out she was pregnant and now has to miscarry , can the husband annul the marriage?

Consult with an attorney, but I'm guessing that it's unlikely (not a legal opinion, though).
Can My Marriage Be Annulled? — DivorceNet

One of the grounds in NJ lying about the ability to have children is grounds. Concealment of a major issue is grounds.

Now, she didn't know that she was a carrier of the CF gene - and even if she did know that, it would still require that he also have the CF gene before they would have an affected child. AND, even if they both knew that they had the affected gene, they could be tested after pregnancy occurred and abort an affected fetus (they may certainly have moral objections to that, but it is legal in the U.S.).

I would guess that it would come down to how strongly she suspected it. For example, if she had a sibling with CF, then she would have a 50% chance of being a carrier - in which case she probably has an obligation to disclose that. If she has a significantly lower chance than that (say a first cousin with CF), I doubt if she would need to (keep in mind that 1 out of 29 caucasians carry a mutation of the CF gene - even with no family history).

In any event, it would come down to how she suspected it and what she told her husband.

 

[nextwife]

And everybody KNOWS what genes they carry?

I miscarried, I'm sure glad my spouse didn't want to dump me just because I can't carry to term.

 

[mistoffolees]

And everybody KNOWS what genes they carry?

I miscarried, I'm sure glad my spouse didn't want to dump me just because I can't carry to term.

There's a difference. CF is well understood (at least at the genetic transmission level) and it is quite clear that if one child in a family is born with CF (to parents who do not have CF), the odds are 1/4 that any other child will have CF, 1/2 that another child will be a carrier, and 1/4 that another child will not have a CF gene.

So if OP has a sibling with CF, there's a 50% chance she's a carrier. If one parent has CF, there's a 100% chance she's a carrier. At those levels, one would expect that she'd have an obligation to tell her spouse, although I'm still not sure it would be sufficient to get an annulment.

If there are family members with CF, it is possible to calculate the odds that she's a carrier. Again, that's not to say that it would be grounds for an annulment if the odds are high, but she should certainly disclose it if it's more than a small chance (again, keep in mind that there's a 3% chance that a caucasian is a carrier even without a family history).

 

[AHA]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New Jersey

If a wife suspects she is a carrier of the gene for cystic fibrosis, and she did not tell her husband until she found out she was pregnant and now has to miscarry , can the husband annul the marriage?

What do you mean "has to"? A miscarriage is not a choice. That would be called an abortion.

 

[nextwife]

There's a difference. CF is well understood (at least at the genetic transmission level) and it is quite clear that if one child in a family is born with CF (to parents who do not have CF), the odds are 1/4 that any other child will have CF, 1/2 that another child will be a carrier, and 1/4 that another child will not have a CF gene.

So if OP has a sibling with CF, there's a 50% chance she's a carrier. If one parent has CF, there's a 100% chance she's a carrier. At those levels, one would expect that she'd have an obligation to tell her spouse, although I'm still not sure it would be sufficient to get an annulment.

If there are family members with CF, it is possible to calculate the odds that she's a carrier. Again, that's not to say that it would be grounds for an annulment if the odds are high, but she should certainly disclose it if it's more than a small chance (again, keep in mind that there's a 3% chance that a caucasian is a carrier even without a family history).

And considering how very many children have a legal parent who are NOT their bioparent (how often do posters come here who established legal paternity for another man's child, whose child eventually turned out to not be theirs biologcally but could not be legally disestablished, or who became legal dad by default?), there are likely zillions of people who have at least a father who is not biologically theirs. I contend that the legal paternity laws create many situations in which children never have an opportunity to know their actual bioheritage. Even mom may not know if her dad was really her biodad in more cases than we realize. Thus, unless someone has themselves been tested genetically or has strong familial evidence, one cannot expect true knowledge of the risk.

 

[ecmst12]

If the wife had a parent or sibling with CF, chances are pretty good that the husband knew about it too.

 

[mistoffolees]

And considering how very many children have a legal parent who are NOT their bioparent (how often do posters come here who established legal paternity for another man's child, whose child eventually turned out to not be theirs biologcally but could not be legally disestablished, or who became legal dad by default?), there are likely zillions of people who have at least a father who is not biologically theirs. I contend that the legal paternity laws create many situations in which children never have an opportunity to know their actual bioheritage. Even mom may not know if her dad was really her biodad in more cases than we realize. Thus, unless someone has themselves been tested genetically or has strong familial evidence, one cannot expect true knowledge of the risk.

It's an interesting philosophical discussion, which is one of the reasons why from a legal perspective it's not clear.

However, in assessing the odds that you have CF if you have a sibling with CF, you would probably not consider the possibility of the two of you having different parents. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, you would probably assume that if your sib has it, you have a 50% risk of being a carrier.

And since we're talking about whether her suspicion is sufficient that she should have notified her husband, it is her thinking that matters, not the reality of the situation.

But, again, without more specifics as to why she suspected she might be a carrier, it's impossible to say.

 

[nextwife]

And considering there are medical privacy laws, it is doubtful that anyone is obligated to disclose genetic possibilities. Right or wrong, it is a privacy matter and I know of n o case law that makes disclosure of possible genetic risk obligatory.

 

[tranquility]

What one knows and what one has a statistical likelihood of are very different things. I guarantee this question, or one similar, will come up more and more in the future as we understand the genetic code of humans. However, that will be then, this is now. (Current medical privacy laws would not have anything to do with this contractual issue.)

Can the OP make a case there was fraud in the inducement of marriage to the point of allowing an annulment? Maybe. I haven't researched it but bet there is not a case directly on point. What is "known"? What percentage chance is required for fraud? If a person knew, to 99% probability they could not conceive, I think that would be grounds for an annulment. 50%? Less? More? Ask the fact finder, it will not be a matter of law.

What practical difference does it make? Why go through all the expense and effort for a maybe annulment? If the OP is bothered so much about it, get a divorce. The actual process will be cheaper and easier, although there may be property and alimony issues which is what the OP may be worrying about. If so, it stands to reason the marriage is fairly long standing. A long-standing marriage with a conception is far less likely to have a court find for annulment anyway. So, for the general FreeAdvice annulment advice 1(a), if you don't want to be married, get a divorce.

 

[nextwife]

So a person only has value as a spouse if they can procreate, and procreate near perfect kids? Why not use donor eggs if their genetics aren't "good enough"?

When we start talking "acceptable genetics" we start wandering into Master Race politics, which, I don't know about you, sure makes me dam**d uncomfortable. If we start COMPELLING genetic disclosure, where does it end? What genetic anomalies/background MUST a potential coparent be obligated to share?

All the happy adoptive families I know would find that very interesting.

 

[Ohiogal]

It is NOT fraud. First of all even if you have the gene for CF you can still procreate. There are risks but there are risks in ANY pregnancy.
Secondly, unless she LIED about having the gene and KNEW she had the gene, she hasn't done anything wrong either morally or legally.

 

[tranquility]

If you guys don't think that's where the law is going, absent specific future statutes, I think you're kidding yourselves. There is a brave new world coming.

And, yes, "failing to disclose" if you can procreate is grounds for an annulment in New Jersey. (As is lying about if you want a family.) Since most all medicine is statistics and not certainty (See recent report of a girl who got pregnant who had no vagina.) as what percentage likelihood is a person considered impotent or sterile? Here, obviously, we have a potential fraud issue if the person lied (not just failed to disclose) in a discussion on something like "Do you think there would be any problems to us having kids?" I don't know if there was a lie or what type of discussion and how specific it was to prove up a lie, it's just possible there was.

 

[nextwife]

But she COULD procreate. What she couldn't do was procreate with the CERTAINTY that the fetus would be free of a particular genetic anomaly.

Pretty narrow minded approach. Today, one can create a "family" together in other ways than traditional procreation. Such laws devalue families created in other ways.

 

[mistoffolees]

So a person only has value as a spouse if they can procreate, and procreate near perfect kids? Why not use donor eggs if their genetics aren't "good enough"?

When we start talking "acceptable genetics" we start wandering into Master Race politics, which, I don't know about you, sure makes me dam**d uncomfortable. If we start COMPELLING genetic disclosure, where does it end? What genetic anomalies/background MUST a potential coparent be obligated to share?

All the happy adoptive families I know would find that very interesting.

While I agree with you completely on moral grounds, on legal grounds, failure to disclose the inability to have kids is grounds for annulment in NJ. It is NOT clear that failure to disclose carrying the CF gene (even if she knew she had it) would be grounds for annulment even in NJ.