Soos v. SUPERIOR CT. COUNTY OF MARICOPA
182 Ariz. 470, 897 p.2d 1356, 179 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 22 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An Arizona statute that allows biological fathers to establish paternity and gain custody, but denies biological mothers the same opportunity in a gestational surrogacy context, violates the Equal Protection Clause by treating similarly situated parents disparately without a compelling state interest.
Facts:
- Ronald A. Soos and Pamela J. Soos, who were then married, entered into a surrogate parentage contract with Debra Balias because Pamela was unable to have children due to a partial hysterectomy.
- Eggs were removed from Pamela and fertilized in vitro (in a test tube) by sperm obtained from Ronald.
- Pursuant to a "Host Uterus Program," the fertilized eggs were implanted in Debra Balias, who subsequently became pregnant with triplets.
- During Debra's pregnancy, Pamela filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and requested shared custody of the unborn triplets.
- Debra Balias gave birth to triplets in September 1993.
Procedural Posture:
- Pamela J. Soos filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, requesting shared custody of the unborn triplets.
- Ronald A. Soos responded to the dissolution petition, alleging that he was the biological father and that pursuant to A.R.S. § 25-218, Debra Balias (the Surrogate) was the legal mother, thus Pamela had no standing to request custody.
- Ronald A. Soos and Debra Balias filed a request for order of paternity with the Maricopa County Superior Court (trial court).
- The Maricopa County Superior Court entered an order naming Ronald A. Soos as the natural father of the triplets, and he took custody of the triplets.
- Pamela J. Soos filed a motion for appointment of counsel for the triplets, a motion for temporary emergency visitation, and a motion to consolidate the dissolution proceeding with the paternity action, attacking the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 25-218(B).
- The trial court found A.R.S. § 25-218(B) to be unconstitutional, ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine which mother could better assume the social and legal responsibilities of motherhood, and granted Pamela temporary visitation rights, while Ronald retained temporary custody.
- Ronald A. Soos's motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Ronald A. Soos, as Petitioner, filed a Petition for Special Action with the Court of Appeals of Arizona (the current court) challenging the trial court's order.
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 an Arizona statute (A.R.S. § 25-218(B)), which declares the gestational surrogate as the legal mother and does not provide a genetic mother an opportunity to establish maternity and custody, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions when the genetic father is afforded the opportunity to establish paternity?
Opinions:
Majority - Claborne, Presiding Judge
Yes, A.R.S. § 25-218(B) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States and Arizona Constitutions because it affords a biological father an opportunity to prove paternity and gain custody, but does not afford a biological mother the same opportunity. The court applied strict scrutiny because the statute affects a fundamental right (parent’s right to custody and control of one’s child) and involves a gender-based distinction that treats similarly situated biological parents dissimilarly. The state failed to demonstrate a compelling interest for this disparate treatment or that the means were closely tailored to the end. While A.R.S. § 25-218(C) allows a husband to rebut the presumption of legal paternity, no corresponding mechanism exists for a genetic mother to prove maternity, thereby denying her procedural process to establish her parental rights based on her biological link, which the court deemed a protected interest. The court found that the Mother has parental interests not less deserving of protection than those of the Father, and by providing dissimilar treatment for men and women similarly situated, the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Concurring - Gerber, Judge
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional for the reasons stated by the majority, and also for several additional reasons. Judge Gerber opined that the state has legitimate interests in regulating surrogacy (preventing baby brokering, avoiding emotional disruption to the gestational mother, and preventing commodification of children), but the current statute fails to achieve these goals. Specifically, the statute unconstitutionally imposes the burden of motherhood on a surrogate who did not contract for it and disregards the best interests of the child by automatically granting custody to a surrogate who may have no interest in raising the child. Furthermore, the statute is overbroad because it prohibits all surrogacy, including altruistic arrangements between family or friends, which may be constitutionally permissible. The opinion also highlighted that the statute ignores the universal pattern in domestic relations law to make custody determinations an evidentiary matter based on the child's best interests, rather than an a priori statutory fiat.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it strikes down an Arizona statute that attempted to define legal parentage in gestational surrogacy, where the genetic mother is distinct from the gestational carrier. By applying strict scrutiny and finding an Equal Protection violation, the court reinforced the fundamental nature of parental rights, even for genetic parents who do not carry the child. The ruling highlights the need for states to draft surrogacy laws that provide equal opportunities for genetic parents to establish legal relationships with their children, regardless of gender, and to consider the child's best interests, rather than making blanket statutory declarations of parentage. This decision would necessitate legislative reform in Arizona to create a more constitutionally sound framework for parentage in assisted reproduction.
