Title: Allied Law – The Consent Case
Setting: Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver. Rain presses against tall courthouse windows. The gallery is full. The case has drawn media attention because it touches on reproductive deception and parental rights.
CAST
- Justice Eleanor Markovic – presiding
- Mike Jukic – counsel for the plaintiff (alleged father)
- Joe Jukic – co-counsel
- Amelia Hart – defendant
- Daniel Reyes – plaintiff
- Clerk, Bailiff, Jury
ACT I – OPENING STATEMENTS
Bailiff:
“All rise.”
Justice Markovic enters. The courtroom settles.
Justice Markovic:
“Mr. Jukic, you may proceed.”
Mike Jukic – Opening
Mike rises, steady.
“Your Ladyship, this case is not about orientation. It is not about judgment of lifestyle. It is about consent and deception.
My client, Daniel Reyes, engaged in what he believed was casual, protected intimacy. He was told explicitly by the defendant that she had undergone a tubal ligation — that pregnancy was impossible. After the encounter, he discarded protection. The defendant later retrieved it without his knowledge and inseminated herself.
Months later, Daniel learned he was to be a father.
The issue before this court is simple:
Can consent to intimacy become consent to parenthood when obtained through deception?”
He sits.
Defense Counsel – Opening
Ms. Hart’s counsel rises.
“Your Ladyship, the child exists. Biology exists. The plaintiff participated willingly in an adult encounter. There was no contract, no clinic, no written donor agreement. Intentions after the fact do not erase responsibility.”
ACT II – DANIEL TESTIFIES
Daniel sits in the witness box.
Mike:
“Mr. Reyes, did the defendant tell you she had her tubes tied?”
Daniel:
“Yes. More than once.”
“Did that affect your decision?”
“Yes. I would not have taken the risk otherwise.”
“Did you consent to becoming a father?”
“No.”
The courtroom is silent.
ACT III – THE ROOMMATE
The roommate, Tyler, takes the stand.
Mike:
“Where were you that evening?”
“In my bedroom. Joe and I were playing FIFA. Volume off.”
A ripple of surprise.
Mike:
“You could hear the conversation next door?”
“Yes. Thin walls.”
“What did you hear?”
“I heard her say, ‘Don’t worry. I can’t have kids. My tubes are tied.’”
Gasps in the gallery.
ACT IV – JOE TAKES THE STAND
There’s tension as Joe Jukic rises from counsel table and steps into the witness box.
Defense Counsel:
“Isn’t it unusual for counsel to testify?”
Justice Markovic:
“Mr. Jukic has withdrawn from active questioning for this portion. Proceed.”
Joe swears in.
Mike (measured):
“Joe, where were you that evening?”
“Tyler’s room. We were playing FIFA on mute.”
“Did you hear the defendant speak?”
“Yes.”
“What did she say?”
“She assured Daniel she couldn’t get pregnant. She laughed. Said, ‘It’s biologically impossible.’”
The courtroom tightens.
Defense Counsel (cross):
“You didn’t see anything, correct?”
“No.”
“You’re inferring what happened afterward.”
Joe leans forward slightly.
“I’m not inferring what I heard.”
ACT V – AMELIA TESTIFIES
Amelia sits composed.
Defense Counsel:
“Did you tell Mr. Reyes you had a tubal ligation?”
A pause.
“I might have said something like that. It was casual.”
“Did you retrieve the discarded condom?”
Another pause.
“Yes.”
Murmurs erupt.
“Why?”
“I wanted a child.”
“Did you tell Mr. Reyes that?”
“No.”
ACT VI – CLOSING ARGUMENT
Mike rises slowly.
“Your Ladyship, the law recognizes autonomy. Consent must be informed. If one party lies about fertility to induce intimacy, the foundation of consent cracks.
This is not about punishing motherhood. It is about whether deception transforms protected intimacy into unprotected parenthood.
We are not asking this court to erase a child. We are asking it to acknowledge that consent was manipulated.”
He pauses.
“Parenthood is profound. It cannot be engineered through trickery.”
Allied Law – The Consent Case
Supreme Court of British Columbia – Vancouver
Rain streaks the tall courthouse windows. The courtroom is silent as Justice Eleanor Markovic prepares to rule.
Justice Markovic – Judgment
“This court has carefully considered the testimony, including the admission that the defendant misrepresented her fertility and intentionally retrieved biological material without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.
The evidence establishes three critical facts:
- The plaintiff consented to protected intimacy under the explicit assurance that pregnancy was impossible.
- The defendant knowingly misrepresented that assurance.
- The defendant deliberately used discarded genetic material to achieve conception without the plaintiff’s knowledge.
Consent obtained through material deception is not informed consent.
This court will not ignore that reality.”
A pause. Every eye is fixed on the bench.
“Ordinarily, biological parenthood carries financial responsibility. However, the circumstances here are extraordinary. The defendant acted with clear intention to circumvent the plaintiff’s reproductive choice.
The court finds that imposing financial obligation on the deceived party would reward misconduct.
Accordingly:
- The plaintiff shall have the right to decline parental responsibility if he so chooses.
- The defendant, having unilaterally engineered conception, shall bear primary financial responsibility for the child.
- The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $1,000 per month for a period of 18 years, representing financial burden, reputational harm, and emotional distress.”
Gasps ripple through the courtroom.
Justice Markovic continues:
“Let this ruling stand as precedent: reproductive autonomy belongs to both parties. Deception in matters of procreation carries consequences.”
Gavel strikes.
Outside the Courthouse
Reporters shout questions.
Mike exhales slowly.
Joe looks out at the rain falling over Vancouver.
Joe mutters quietly:
“Consent isn’t a game.”
Mike nods.
“Neither is parenthood.”
Daniel stands still for a moment — not victorious, not defeated — just steady.
Fade to black.