In a case where H dies intestate, and a child Y is born after H's death due to his banked sperm, what is the strongest legal argument for Y's share?

• A. The child is entitled to a share automatically
• B. H consented, in writing, to banking of his sperm in anticipation of possible posthumous conception
• C. The banked sperm creates a trust for Y
• D. The estate passes to W by default

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is recognizing posthumously conceived children for inheritance when there is explicit consent to posthumous conception. If H gave written consent to bank his sperm for possible use after death, that consent signals a clear intention that any child conceived from that sperm is H’s issue for purposes of his estate. That makes Y’s status as a potential heir much stronger, because the law often requires or strongly favors such express intent to treat a posthumously conceived child as the decedent’s heir. Without that written consent, courts may question whether Y is legally H’s child for intestate inheritance, and other mechanisms like a trust or automatic transfer are not automatically in place. The option about surviving spouses or default transfers rests on assumptions that aren’t guaranteed without recognized paternity or explicit intent. So the written, in‑advance consent to banking the sperm directly supports treating Y as H’s heir, making it the strongest argument for Y’s share.