Family opposed to use of dead son's testes launch legal bid

Leith Patteson and her fiance Tony Brian Deane had been engaged since October, 2015. Photo / Supplied NZH

The family of a Hamilton man whose testes were removed after he died - in case his partner wanted a child - has launched a legal case against her.

Tony Brian Deane, 34, died in Toowoomba, Queensland, last April.

He moved to Australia in 2015 after connecting with a woman, Leith Patteson, online.

They would become engaged a month later.

Shortly after his death, his fiancee - who was now also his next of kin - applied to the Supreme Court to have his testes removed so she could one day use his sperm to conceive a child.

Deane's parents, Phil and Gaye, are opposed to the idea and want the testes destroyed.

In a Givealittle page set up by the family, they are clear about how they feel about the situation.

"As a parent, all you ever want is for your child to be safe no matter how old they are and for you to watch your children grow old and live a happy life.

"Unfortunately, this is not the situation in this case."

The family is hoping to raise funds to help pay for legal fees and expenses they are set to incur in their attempt to stop Patteson - or anyone - from using their dead son's testes.

They have labelled the removal as unfair and a move that did not take into consideration their own son's wants.

"It's our family's belief Tony's testes were removed because of an unfair ruling, unjustly and without consideration for his wishes."

The lawyer acting for the family told the Herald last year that Deane's parents did not oppose the removal of their son's testes at the time, as they feared doing so may delay court processes and hinder the release of his body to them.

Patteson's lawyer, David Riwoe, told Fairfax he had not spoken to his client but had no reason to believe her position had changed.

She had not yet filed an application to use Deane's sperm, but intended to do so, perhaps sometime in the next year.

"She would object to any application to destroy the stored sperm (in consideration the deceased's family explicitly stated that they had no objection to the sperms removal on the terms of the first application)."

**To help the Deane family, visit: Givealittle