The case concerns a cancer survivor’s effort to use embryos she helped create during her marriage, and the constitutional protections she asks the Court of Appeal to apply before those embryos are placed beyond her reproductive use.
Prepared by the Law Office of J.R. Howell, counsel for Sofiya Goldshteyn. This package brings together the parties’ positions, the trial court’s decisions, and the underlying testimony so that reporters can examine the dispute independently.
Download the media kit
A concise orientation to the case, the important dates, and quotations linked to the record.
Words from the record
Verified quotations
Selected testimony and judicial statements, with sources and context.
Download the full kitFact sheet, quotations, opening brief, and source guide · ZIP
Where the case stands
- Filed opening brief
- October 19, 2026. The clerk-stamped brief is available in full.
- Preservation and custody
- The May 19 minute order refers to the automatic appellate-stay provision. Contact counsel to confirm later orders and the embryos’ current storage and preservation status.
- Next court date
- Consult the official appellate docket using case number B355195 for current briefing dates, orders, and any hearing. No future date is confirmed in this package.
What the court decided, and what the appeal challenges
The trial court’s orders
The court directed the remaining genetic embryo to medical research and awarded Borenstein control of the donor-egg embryos. Its later ruling conditionally left certain earlier embryos for another proceeding.
Read the rulingsThe constitutional question
“The Court’s decision does not interfere with a party’s reproductive rights.”
The court declined to address reproductive rights because it concluded that its decision did not interfere with those rights. Goldshteyn argues that the orders themselves require constitutional review because they prevent the reproductive use she seeks.
Read the constitutional argumentsThe judgment sought
Goldshteyn asks for possession, control, and reproductive use of all embryos covered by the dispute, with preservation and an accurate inventory. Further adjudication is requested only if the appellate court cannot direct that judgment.
Read the requested reliefVerify the story in the record
The court’s own words
Trial court rulings
The April decision and May ruling on objections identify what the court found, ordered, and declined to decide.
Appellant’s Opening Brief
Counsel’s account of the record, the legal arguments, and the relief sought on appeal. This is the clerk-stamped copy.
Official Reporter’s Transcript
Read the trial testimony of Sofiya and Max in context, including the questions they were asked and their answers.
The brief’s RT citations refer to the official transcript’s printed page and line numbers. The Appellant’s Appendix contains the court papers and exhibits. The authorities collection provides access to the legal sources.
The case
Borenstein v. Goldshteyn, No. B355195, is before the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five. The Law Office of J.R. Howell represents Sofiya. Her former husband, Max Borenstein, opposes her reproductive use of the embryos. The appeal challenges the court’s disposition orders, its enforcement of the parties’ written directives, and its treatment of Sofiya’s constitutional and financial claims.
Key dates
- February 24, 2026: Trial on the disputed embryos.
- April 23, 2026: The court issued its tentative decision directing the genetic embryo to research and awarding Max control over the donor-egg embryos.
- May 12, 2026: The court adopted its decision with modifications after Sofiya’s objections.
- May 14, 2026: Sofiya appealed.
- May 19, 2026: The court denied a requested stay extension by reference to the automatic appellate-stay provision. Minute order.
- October 19, 2026: Sofiya filed her opening brief.
Questions that matter when reporting
What is Sofiya asking the appellate court to do?
Her primary request is a judgment securing her possession, control, and reproductive use of all embryos within the dispute, with preservation and implementation orders. Her plan involves a gestational carrier. The brief also preserves financial claims concerning interests placed beyond her use. Those claims do not replace her request to have children using the embryos. See the requested relief.
Did she sign embryo-disposition forms?
Yes. Sofiya acknowledged signatures on the admitted forms. Her challenge concerns which embryos the forms cover, what their conflicting instructions mean, and whether enforcing them through these orders violates her rights. The appeal also raises spousal fiduciary duties. The dispute cannot accurately be described as a case with no written agreements. Read the contract testimony at RT 74–79 and the qualification about embryo coverage at RT 81.
Why does she seek donor-egg embryos too?
Sofiya helped create those embryos as part of the family she intended to raise. Her testimony describes choosing an egg donor with care, including attention to personality, family background, and Jewish and Eastern European ancestry. Their significance to her extends beyond a genetic connection. The genetic embryo has the separate significance of being her remaining opportunity to have a child sharing her DNA. Read her testimony at RT 68.
Does Max object only to paying child support?
No. He testified that eliminating child-support obligations would not resolve his objection. He also described wanting to have a child with a partner who shares that decision. Sofiya’s appeal proposes protections addressing legal parenthood. Her willingness to assume responsibility does not itself create a binding waiver or satisfy every requirement of parentage law. Both parties’ trial submissions and the trial transcript are available. Read his answer at RT 47:4–7 and his explanation at RT 41–42.
Have the ordered dispositions already occurred?
The documents linked here do not establish that the embryos have been donated, destroyed, or transferred under the orders. On May 19, the trial court denied a requested stay extension while citing Code of Civil Procedure section 916(a), which provides for an automatic stay of specified trial-court proceedings upon appeal. Read the complete May 19 minute order. The denial should not be read as a finding that no appellate stay applies. Contact counsel to confirm any later orders and the embryos’ current physical status.
Interviews and further information
For questions about the record, a deadline inquiry, or an interview request, contact the Law Office of J.R. Howell at jr@lojrh.com or (323) 897-8656. Include your outlet or channel, subject, deadline, and preferred format. Counsel can discuss the appeal and coordinate requests to speak with Sofiya.
For photographs, interview recordings, or other editorial materials, include the intended use in your request so that availability, credits, and permissions can be confirmed for the particular asset.
Seeking the other party’s response
Borenstein’s trial brief and closing brief state his position. The opening brief’s October 18 proof of service identifies Garry M. Gekht and Carly Joanne Timm-Bijold as his counsel. Reporters can use Garry Gekht’s public firm page to contact his office independently.