The case in two minutes
Sofiya Goldshteyn told the trial court that she began fertility preservation on the day she learned she had breast cancer. Years later, a California trial court directed her remaining genetic embryo to medical research and awarded her former husband, Max Borenstein, control of the donor-egg embryos they had created during their marriage.1
In an opening brief filed October 19, 2026, Goldshteyn challenges those orders under the California and United States Constitutions. Her appeal asks whether a court may enforce embryo-disposition agreements that permanently foreclose her reproductive use without examining the constitutional rights she asserts. The Law Office of J.R. Howell represents Goldshteyn.
She seeks a judgment securing her possession, control, and reproductive use of the embryos, including those created with donor eggs. The remaining genetic embryo has a separate significance: the trial court recognized it as her last opportunity to have a genetically related child. Read the relief requested in the appeal.
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 reliefWhere 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.
The life Sofiya was building
Sofiya is a writer and comedian. She studied literature at George Washington University, participated in theater, and volunteered in the Washington, D.C., community before returning to Los Angeles to pursue her career. In 2016, she was writing on her first television show, Danger & Eggs, and recorded her first Comedy Central appearance. That was also the year she was diagnosed with breast cancer at thirty-three. As described in Sofiya’s trial brief, she performed at eight comedy festivals during her diagnosis and surgery. She continued performing through chemotherapy and radiation.2
Her wish to have children also carries a family history. At trial, Sofiya described being born in Odessa, Ukraine, while it was part of the Soviet Union, and coming to Los Angeles with her mother as a child refugee. Her Jewish family had lost many relatives to the Nazis. Cancer later took her grandmother. Her grandfather died during the pandemic. In her testimony, she connected her hope of having children with the continuation of a small surviving family.3
Preserving the possibility of children during cancer treatment
The cancer diagnosis required Sofiya to make decisions about her fertility before she knew what treatment would mean for her future. She began fertility injections that same day. Her testimony describes a lumpectomy, a year of chemotherapy, and thirty days of radiation. She also described hormone suppression that placed her in menopause and the danger pregnancy’s hormonal changes posed to her health. Egg retrievals required interruptions in her cancer medication. By the time of trial, the court found she could no longer produce additional eggs.
Sofiya and Max pursued parenthood through gestational carriers. Three pregnancies ended in miscarriage. Her trial brief describes her work preparing their profile for the surrogacy service and maintaining contact with the women during and after the pregnancies. The effort involved repeated treatment, relationships with the women carrying the pregnancies, and the loss of children she had hoped to raise. Her appeal concerns the embryos that remain from that effort.4
Why both kinds of embryos matter to her
The embryo created with Sofiya’s egg has a particular significance because the court recognized it as her last opportunity for genetic motherhood. Her commitment also extends to embryos created with donor eggs and Max’s sperm. She testified about choosing a donor for resemblance, personality, family background, and Jewish and Eastern European ancestry. She participated in creating those embryos for the family she intended to raise.
Sofiya described what she wanted in straightforward terms: “the chance to have the children from the embryos that already exist.” After the work and prayer that went into creating them, discarding them seemed to her “a sacrilege.” Her request includes both the genetic embryo and the donor-egg embryos. The possibility of acquiring different eggs and sperm does not answer her desire to continue the reproductive undertaking she already began.5
The disagreement and the court’s decision
The parties signed clinic forms addressing embryo disposition after divorce. Sofiya acknowledged her signatures and her understanding of the research-donation selection when one form was signed. She disputed which embryos the forms governed and the legal consequences of enforcing them. Max relied on the directives and opposed reproductive use of both categories of embryos. His objection extended beyond financial responsibility. He testified that removing support obligations was “not my only objection” and described wanting to have a child with a person who shared that decision with him.6
The superior court directed the joint-DNA embryo to medical research and awarded the donor-egg embryos to Max “to do so as he sees fit.” It stated that Sofiya had “no real claim” to the donor-egg embryos because they would not continue her genetic lineage and she could obtain other donor eggs and sperm. The court treated its decision as enforcement of the parties’ desires and declared that the decision did not interfere with reproductive rights. Its May 12 modification also conditionally left additional earlier embryos for another proceeding. The appeal challenges those orders and the unresolved questions about which embryos they reach.7
What the appeal asks the court to decide
Sofiya’s constitutional argument begins with the effect of the court’s orders on her reproductive choice. She argues that California’s protections of privacy, reproductive freedom, and equal protection apply when medical assistance makes family formation possible. The brief relies on the Reproductive Privacy Act’s express inclusion of infertility care and also invokes the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections of liberty and equality. It asks the court to examine the constitutional justification for directing research donation and placing the other embryos beyond Sofiya’s control, including the significance of her deliberate participation in creating embryos with donor eggs.8
The appeal separately challenges the interpretation and enforcement of the directives. One admitted form selects research donation upon divorce, while another selects transfer to the male partner. Both refer broadly to embryos in storage. The record contains conflicting accounts of creation dates, numbers, and locations. Her opening brief identifies contradictory findings about the remaining genetic embryo’s origin and argues that the court had to determine which agreement governed each embryo. It also raises the duties spouses owe one another when an agreement gives one spouse an advantage over the other. These issues require findings tied to the particular embryos and agreements.9
The primary relief Sofiya seeks is a judgment securing her reproductive use of all embryos covered by the dispute, including earlier embryos the trial court conditionally left for another proceeding. Implementation would require a reconciled inventory and orders addressing preservation, custody, and transfer. Only if the Court of Appeal cannot direct that judgment does she request further adjudication of the submitted claims before any disposition, with continued preservation. The brief also seeks resolution of the financial claims the parties reserved, including compensation for community interests placed beyond Sofiya’s use.10
Read the case and participate
The media kit provides a fact sheet, a chronology, verified quotations, and links to the underlying record. For questions about the appeal or requests to interview Sofiya, contact the Law Office of J.R. Howell at jr@lojrh.com or (323) 897-8656. Scholars, clinicians, and organizations interested in assisting the court can separately review the call for amicus support.
Sources
- Official Reporter’s Transcript 53:23–54:5 (Sofiya’s account of the diagnosis-day fertility decision); April 23 decision, printed pp. 6–8 (the directed dispositions and the finding concerning genetic motherhood). Appellant’s Opening Brief 19, 23 (recounting Sofiya’s testimony and the challenged dispositions). ↩
- Respondent’s Trial Brief 2 (describing Sofiya’s education, creative work, and treatment history). ↩
- Official Reporter’s Transcript 52:26–53:10 (Sofiya’s testimony about her childhood and family). Appellant’s Opening Brief 19 (recounting testimony about Sofiya’s childhood and family history). ↩
- Official Reporter’s Transcript 53–59 (Sofiya’s account of medical treatment, retrievals, and surrogacy); April 23 decision, printed p. 7 (the court’s finding concerning egg production). Appellant’s Opening Brief 19 (recounting medical and reproductive testimony), and Respondent’s Trial Brief 2–3 (describing Sofiya’s participation in the surrogacy process). ↩
- Official Reporter’s Transcript 68:3–26 (donor selection and Sofiya’s explanation of her connection to existing embryos). Appellant’s Opening Brief 19–20, 27 (recounting donor selection and Sofiya’s testimony about the existing embryos and explaining her reproductive-choice argument). ↩
- Official Reporter’s Transcript 74–79 and 81:8–23 (acknowledgment of the forms and qualifications concerning coverage); 47:4–7 and 41:26–42:6 (Borenstein’s objections). Appellant’s Opening Brief 20–21 (recounting both parties’ testimony and the disputed directives). ↩
- April 23 decision, printed pp. 6–8 (dispositions and reproductive-rights reasoning); May 12 ruling, printed p. 3 (conditional reservation of earlier embryos). Appellant’s Opening Brief 23 (describing the trial court’s reasoning, orders, and May modification). ↩
- Appellant’s Opening Brief 25–31, 34–49 (developing the state and federal constitutional claims and the reproductive interest in donor-egg embryos). ↩
- Appellant’s Opening Brief 50–56 (challenging contractual scope, contradictory findings, and the refusal to apply interspousal fiduciary protections). ↩
- Appellant’s Opening Brief 59–60 (specifying the primary relief, implementation directions, subordinate alternative adjudication, and financial relief). ↩