Case background: The man and woman at the centre of the "frozen embryos" case married in 1992 but their relationship ran into difficulties 10 years later because the man had formed another relationship, the High Court was told.
Gerard Hogan SC, for the woman, was outlining the background to proceedings which the woman had initiated two years ago. He said the couple met in the mid-1980s, became engaged in 1991, put a deposit on a house and married in early 1992. In 1994, they sought fertility advice from their GP and were referred to the National Maternity Hospital at Holles Street in Dublin.
In 1995, the woman underwent a laparoscopy which disclosed no immediate medical problem. In 1996, she was checked for a possible cyst on her ovary.
She later conceived naturally and, with some medical treatment, gave birth to her first child in 1997. Following later surgery to treat a cyst, she lost two-thirds of an ovary.
She wanted to get pregnant again and had another laparoscopy in Holles Street in 2000. Following unsuccessful treatment, she was referred for IVF treatment and the couple went to the Sims clinic in Rathgar.
They had their first appointment in October 2001, and in late January and early February 2002, a number of "very important" consent documents were signed, Mr Hogan said. He contended these consents made evident it was clearly understood by the couple at all times the frozen embryos would be used for implantation and would not be destroyed. Only the woman's consent was required for implantation of the embryos in her uterus, he also argued.
The woman became pregnant after six of the embryos were implanted and gave birth to her second child in late 2002.
Marital difficulties arose towards the end of her second pregnancy because the man had formed a relationship with another woman. The couple judicially separated after an attempt at reconciliation failed.
In November 2005, the wife asked her husband for a statement to the effect the embryos could be implanted in her uterus but no consent was given and the clinic refused to release the embryos in the absence of such consent. Legal proceedings were then initiated.
Earlier yesterday, Mr Hogan asked that the court request the media not to identify the parties because of the two children involved and the private nature of the case. Counsel for all sides and the judge agreed the court had no jurisdiction to make an order prohibiting publication of identities but the judge asked the media to exercise sensitivity.