Hodas v. Morin
442 Mass. 544 (2004)
Rule of Law:
Massachusetts courts will uphold a contractual choice of Massachusetts law in a gestational carrier agreement, even when the parties reside in other states, if Massachusetts has a substantial relationship to the transaction and the application of its law is not contrary to a fundamental policy of another state which has a materially greater interest and whose law would otherwise apply.
Facts:
- The plaintiffs (genetic parents), who are married, reside in Connecticut.
- The gestational carrier and her husband (nominal defendants) reside in New York.
- In April 2003, the plaintiffs, the gestational carrier, and her husband entered into a gestational carrier agreement.
- The agreement stipulated that any child resulting from the arrangement would be delivered at Berkshire Medical Center in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and that Massachusetts law would govern the agreement.
- Approximately six months after the agreement, the gestational carrier was successfully implanted with an embryo produced from the male plaintiff’s sperm and the female plaintiff’s egg in Connecticut.
- The gestational carrier received at least some prenatal care at Berkshire Medical Center.
- An induced delivery was planned at Berkshire Medical Center for the following week after oral arguments on June 30, 2004.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiffs filed an uncontested equity action in the Probate and Family Court for a declaration of paternity and maternity and for a prebirth order.
- A Probate and Family Court judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ action, finding she lacked authority, and reported her decision to the Appeals Court.
- A single justice of the Appeals Court issued an injunction preventing Berkshire Health Systems, Inc. (the hospital) from issuing any birth certificate or filing it with the Commissioner of Public Health.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the matter from the Appeals Court on its own motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Probate and Family Court judge have authority to issue prebirth judgments of parentage and order a prebirth record of birth when neither the genetic parents nor the gestational carrier reside in Massachusetts, but their contract specifies that the birth occur in a Massachusetts hospital and be governed by Massachusetts law?
Opinions:
Majority - Marshall, C.J.
Yes, a Probate and Family Court judge has the authority to issue prebirth judgments of parentage and order a prebirth record of birth under these circumstances. The court first affirmed that the Probate and Family Court possessed both subject matter jurisdiction (general authority over parentage cases and specific authority for prebirth orders as established in Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess Med. Ctr.) and personal jurisdiction (over the Massachusetts hospital and over the out-of-state gestational carrier and her husband due to their stipulation to judgment). The core of the case involved a choice of law analysis. Applying the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 187(2), the court concluded that Massachusetts law should govern. First, Massachusetts had a "substantial relationship" to the transaction because the contract mandated birth in a Massachusetts hospital and the gestational carrier received prenatal care there. Second, regarding whether applying Massachusetts law would contradict a fundamental policy of a state with a materially greater interest, the court acknowledged New York’s strong policy against gestational agreements but found it inconclusive that New York law would apply in the absence of the parties’ choice, given the dispersed contacts under Restatement § 188. Because the significant contacts were widely dispersed, making a default choice of law difficult, the court honored the parties' explicit choice of Massachusetts law, citing the importance of justified expectations and uniformity of results in conflict of laws analysis.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies Massachusetts' approach to choice-of-law questions in the evolving area of assisted reproductive technology, particularly gestational surrogacy. It reinforces the principle of party autonomy in contractual agreements, even across state lines, when the chosen forum has a legitimate connection to the transaction. The decision provides essential guidance for prospective parents and gestational carriers considering multi-state arrangements, offering a clear framework for when Massachusetts courts will recognize their chosen legal regime. This ruling helps ensure legal certainty for children born through these arrangements and facilitates the establishment of their parentage, thereby mitigating potential legal complexities and emotional distress for the families involved.
