No, that kind of contract is not legal. The court said the agreement was invalid for several important reasons. First, paying someone for a baby is against the law because it's essentially buying a child. Second, a mother's rights to her child are very strong and can't be signed away in a contract, especially not before the baby is even born. Third, the most important thing in any case involving a child is what is best for that child, not what a contract says. Because the contract was illegal, the court restored Ms. Whitehead's status as the legal mother, but it still decided the child's best interests would be served by living with the Sterns, with Ms. Whitehead having visitation rights.

No, the agreement between William and Mary Beth is not valid or enforceable. It's against the law and society's values. The court says it's illegal and possibly hurtful to women to pay a surrogate mother. The parts of the agreement that say Mary Beth has to give up the baby and her rights as a parent forever are not enforceable. The court recognizes Mary Beth as the baby's legal mother. The baby will live with William because that's best for the baby, but Mary Beth is still the baby's legal mother and the adoption by Elizabeth is cancelled. The court still has to decide later if Mary Beth can visit the baby. The court says it's important to treat both biological parents fairly and decide custody based on what's best for the baby.

No, the agreement between William and Mary Beth is not valid or enforceable. It's against the law and society's values. We say it's illegal and possibly hurtful to women to pay a surrogate mother. The parts of the agreement that say Mary Beth has to give up the baby and her rights as a parent forever are not enforceable. We recognize Mary Beth as the baby's legal mother. The baby will live with William because that's best for the baby, but Mary Beth is still the baby's legal mother and the adoption by Elizabeth is cancelled. We still have to decide later if Mary Beth can visit the baby. We say it's important to treat both biological parents fairly and decide custody based on what's best for the baby.

But the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a traditional surrogacy contract was unenforceable without legislative authorization.

But the bedrock idea that "[t] here are, in a civilized society, some things that money cannot buy" is deeply rooted in our nation's law and public policy.

—to invalidate a traditional surrogacy agreement and establish that the surrogate, not the intended mother, was the legal mother of the child.

In Baby M., the Sterns, a married couple where the wife was infertile, contracted with a woman to be artificially inseminated with the husband's sperm, carry the child to term, and then, after the child's birth, relinquish parental rights to the father and his wife.

—concluding that traditional surrogacy contracts conflict with public policy as demonstrated by several state statutes related to adoption, custody, and termination of parental rights

While addressing the issues in the Baby M. case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey observed that, in the surrogacy contract, "the natural mother [is] inappropriately called the `surrogate mother'; nevertheless, that court went on to discuss at length the natural mother's rights as a `surrogate mother.'"

Further, our public policy favors elimination of legal differences between children born to married and unmarried couples; the claims of both natural parents should be accorded equal weight.

The applicable rule given these circumstances is clear: the child's best interests determine custody

A “modern-traditional surrogacy” can also be altruistic as well as strictly commercial, depending upon the surrogate mother and her relationship with the genetic father and his wife

A trial court must not only consider these statutory factors before making a custody determination but must also make a record referencing the statutory factors it has considered and the reasons for its custody determination.

No, the surrogacy contract is invalid and unenforceable because it conflicts with the laws and public policy of New Jersey. The contract violates statutes that prohibit the use of money in connection with adoptions, effectively constituting a sale of a child. It also contravenes laws governing the termination of parental rights, which cannot be achieved by a private contract but only through a judicial finding of abandonment or unfitness. Furthermore, the contract's provision for an irrevocable, pre-birth consent to surrender the child for a private placement adoption is void, as such consents are revocable under state law. Beyond these statutory conflicts, the contract is contrary to public policy because it disregards the child's best interests, guarantees the separation of the child from a natural parent, and exploits the financial needs of the mother, commodifying both women and children.

No, the surrogacy contract is invalid and unenforceable because it conflicts with the law and public policy of New Jersey. The court holds that the payment of money to a surrogate mother is illegal and potentially degrading to women. The contract's provisions for the irrevocable surrender of the child and termination of the surrogate mother's parental rights are unenforceable. The surrogate mother, Mrs. Whitehead, is recognized as the legal mother. Custody is awarded to the natural father, Mr. Stern, based on the child's best interests, but the termination of Mrs. Whitehead's parental rights and the adoption by Mrs. Stern are voided. The issue of Mrs. Whitehead's visitation rights is remanded to the trial court. The court emphasizes the need to treat the claims of both natural parents equally and to make custody determinations based on the best interests of the child, considering statutory factors and making a record of the reasons for the custody decision.

Yes. The surrogacy contract is invalid and unenforceable because it conflicts with the law and public policy of New Jersey. We hold that the payment of money to a surrogate mother is illegal and potentially degrading to women. The contract's provisions for the irrevocable surrender of the child and termination of the surrogate mother's parental rights are unenforceable. The surrogate mother, Mrs. Whitehead, is recognized as the legal mother. We award custody to the natural father, Mr. Stern, based on the child's best interests, but we void the termination of Mrs. Whitehead's parental rights and the adoption by Mrs. Stern. We remand the issue of Mrs. Whitehead's visitation rights to the trial court. We emphasize the need to treat the claims of both natural parents equally and to make custody determinations based on the best interests of the child, considering statutory factors and making a record of the reasons for the custody decision.

In the Matter of Baby M

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot