Matter of Baby M.
537 A.2d 1227 · 1988
Facts
William and Elizabeth Stern, an infertile couple, entered into a surrogacy contract with Mary Beth Whitehead in February 1985. The contract stipulated that Mrs. Whitehead would be artificially inseminated with Mr. Stern's sperm, carry the child to term, and then surrender it to the Stems for a fee of $10,000, allowing Mrs. Stern to adopt. The Infertility Center of New York arranged the agreement for a $7,500 fee. Mrs. Whitehead gave birth to Baby M on March 27, 1986, but immediately formed a strong bond and became unwilling to part with the child. Although she initially turned the baby over to the Stems, she soon retrieved the child, claiming she could not live without her. Mrs. Whitehead subsequently refused to return Baby M and fled to Florida with her husband and the infant to avoid relinquishing custody. After three months of evading authorities, Baby M was forcibly removed from the Whiteheads in Florida and returned to the Stems.
Procedural history
Mr. Stern filed a complaint to enforce the surrogacy contract. The trial court issued an ex parte order for custody, which Mrs. Whitehead evaded by fleeing to Florida with the child. After Baby M's return, the trial court held the contract valid, terminated Mrs. Whitehead's parental rights, and granted custody to Mr. Stern, allowing Mrs. Stern to adopt. Mrs. Whitehead appealed, and this Court granted direct certification.
Issue
Is a surrogacy contract, which involves payment to a woman for carrying a child to term and surrendering her parental rights for adoption, valid and enforceable under state law and public policy? How should custody and parental rights be determined in such a case?
Holding
The surrogacy contract is invalid and unenforceable because it conflicts with state statutes and public policy. The court voided the termination of the surrogate mother's parental rights and the adoption by the wife/stepparent, restoring the surrogate as the child's legal mother. Custody of Baby M was granted to the natural father, Mr. Stern, based on the child's best interests, and the issue of the natural mother's visitation rights was remanded to the trial court.
Rule
Surrogacy contracts that involve payment for the surrender of a child and termination of parental rights are illegal and unenforceable, as they violate state laws prohibiting baby-selling and conflict with public policy regarding adoption and parental rights. State law requires stringent conditions for termination of parental rights, such as proof of unfitness, abandonment, or a voluntary surrender to an approved agency after birth and with counseling, none of which are met by a pre-birth contractual agreement. The child's best interests, not contractual provisions, determine custody in disputes between natural parents, and the constitutional right to procreate does not extend to a right to custody that extinguishes the natural mother's rights.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.