Some judges have, however, taken the position that it is simply inequitable to consider the benefits conferred on the plaintiffs as a result of the birth of an unplanned child. Kirby J. in Cattanach at paragraph 174 quotes the judgment in Marciniak v. Lundborg, 153 Wis. 2d 59, 450 N.W.2d 243 (Wisc. S.C., 1990) at Wis. 73-4, N.W.2d 249 to this effect: The parents made a decision not to have a child. It was precisely to avoid that “benefit” that the parents went to the physician in the first place. Any “benefits” that were conferred upon them as a result of having a new child in their lives were not asked for and were sought to be avoided. With respect to emotional benefits, potential parents in this situation are presumably well aware of the emotional benefits that might accrue to them as the result of a new child in their lives. When parents make the decision to forego this opportunity for emotional enrichment, it hardly seems equitable to not only force this benefit upon them but to tell them they must pay for it as well by offsetting it against their proven emotional damages. With respect to economic benefits, the same argument prevails.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.