If someone found out after the wedding that their partner had been sterilized, what rights would they have?
<p>A friend of mine was dating, and nearly married an immigrant woman. While she was in the "old country," her parents had her sterilized under circumstances that would be illegal in the U.S. but permissible in the other country. (This happened while the girl was undergoing another operation, so she wasn't even informed.) Only when she went to the doctor for a pre marital check up was this discovered.</p>

<p>Since my friend wanted children, they broke up the engagement. But suppose he had found out after the wedding. What rights would he have in the United States? Could he have the marriage annulled as opposed to file for divorce? Could he sue the girl's parents for doing this and not telling her about it?</p>

<p>The full answer is too broad (it's a 50-state survey question). Here is a starter, though. In <a href="https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=26.09.040" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Washington, annulment</a> may be sought if</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(i) The marriage or domestic partnership should not have been
  contracted because of age of one or both of the parties, lack of
  required parental or court approval, a prior undissolved marriage of
  one or both of the parties, a prior domestic partnership of one or
  both parties that has not been terminated or dissolved, reasons of
  consanguinity, or because a party lacked capacity to consent to the
  marriage or domestic partnership, either because of mental incapacity
  or because of the influence of alcohol or other incapacitating
  substances, or because a party was induced to enter into the marriage
  or domestic partnership by force or duress, or by fraud involving the
  essentials of marriage or domestic partnership, and that the parties
  have not ratified their marriage or domestic partnership by
  voluntarily cohabiting after attaining the age of consent, or after
  attaining capacity to consent, or after cessation of the force or
  duress or discovery of the fraud, shall declare the marriage or
  domestic partnership invalid as of the date it was purportedly
  contracted</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But then also</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(ii) The marriage or domestic partnership should not have been
  contracted <em>because of any reason other than those above</em>, shall upon
  motion of a party, order any action which may be appropriate to
  complete or to correct the record and enter a decree declaring such
  marriage or domestic partnership to be valid for all purposes from the
  date upon which it was purportedly contracted</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So an annulment would have to fit into one of these latter unspecified reasons. Although material fraud is considered to be such a reason, the closest case (<a href="https://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-supreme-court/1006263.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">an attempt to annul based on fraud</a>), the WA Supreme Court avoided deciding whether a particular instance of alleged fraud sufficed to invalidate a marriage, since in addition one party was incompetent and the marriage was not solemnized, as required by state law.</p>

<p>In Radochonski v. Radochonski (1998 Wash. App. LEXIS 765), the husband sought a
declaration of invalidity of marriage based on fraud in the essentials of the marriage (the allegation was that the wife entered into the marriage to get permanent residency). The petition was denied because "the alleged fraud does not go to the 'essentials' of marriage" and because he "cannot demonstrate reasonable reliance on any statements Barbara made as to her motive in marrying him". The court notes that there is only one case, <a href="http://courts.mrsc.org/supreme/011wn2d/011wn2d0138.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Harding v. Harding</a>, addressing what the essentials of marriage are:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>where one of the parties to a marriage ceremony determines before the
  ceremony that he or she will not engage in sexual intercourse with the
  other after marriage, not disclosing such intention to the other, and
  carries out such determination, the offending spouse commits a fraud
  in the contract of marriage affecting an essential of the marital
  relation, against which the injured party may be relieved by annulment
  of the marriage.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The court said that fraud in an essential may be found (citing cases in other states) </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>where one spouse has misled another on an attribute that prevents
  sexual relations between the parties such as impotence, venereal
  disease, and drug abuse, the latter on the theory that narcotics cause
  impotence. These attributes have gone to the essentials of marriage
  because they affected the sexual relations that are at the heart of
  the marriage</p>
</blockquote>

<p>but no so in the case of </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>premarital chastity, false representations as to love and affection,
  misrepresentation of affection, failure to disclose out-of-wedlock
  children, fraudulent representation of pregnancy, and failure to end a
  previous relationship.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>So it is highly unlikely that fraud in the essentials of marriage would be found at least in Washington.  </p>

<p>The answer depends on who knew what and when, and whether any material misstatements were made.</p>

<p>In the present case, the wife had been sterilized without her knowledge. That this would be illegal in the US is irrelevant, she had no knowledge and couldn't make any misstatements as to her ability to have children.</p>

<p>That rules out "fraud" as a cause of action, unless she learned of this sterilization prior to the marriage and made statements which were contrary to it. So, quickly ruling out "didn't learn about it until too late", there is again no fraud -- she didn't claim to be "otherwise healthy" knowing she'd been sterilized.</p>

<p>That leaves the case where she knew about the sterilization prior to marriage, and made statements which were false ("I can't wait to start a family, I want to have a dozen children!") and the husband relied upon those statements ("I can't wait to make lots of babies with you, I'm so glad you want to make lots of babies, too, because all those other women I dated didn't want children!")</p>

<p>Now that fraud has been established -- they screwed like wild mink, she claimed to go to a fertility clinic but was actually get a mani-pedi and clubbing with her girlfriends -- there is a question of damages and whether or not the particular state allows at-fault divorces.</p>

<p>And on the point of at-fault divorce, grounds for same, property distribution, and so on, the states vary widely. Without listing a specific state, this is the kind of 50-state-survey which requires far more research than most of us are willing to do.</p>

united-states marriage