Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
F lives with E.D. They want to have children. After enduring infertility treatments and learning that E.D. was incapable of conceiving any more children, the couple considered other options. They eventually contacted Surrogate Mothers, Inc. ('SMI'). They entered into an agreement with SMI listing F as 'Biological Father or Adoptive Father,' E.D. as 'Biological Mother, Adoptive Mother, or Partner,' and the couple as 'Client.' In August 2002, F, egg donor, gestational carrier and her husband executed a surrogacy contract. F agreed to pay gestational carrier the sum of $15,000.00 for a single birth, $20,000.00 for multiple births, plus medical expenses, travel expenses, and life insurance for the duration of the pregnancy. Gestational carrier agreed, inter alia, that she would not attempt to form a parent-child relationship with any child or children she might bear; that she would voluntarily relinquish any parental rights to any such child or children; and F would not be responsible for any lost wages, childcare expenses for existing children, or any other expenses not expressly set forth in the Contract. Gestational carrier or egg donor, each agreed to indemnify F for any and all monies paid for child support, and reimburse him for any and all monies paid to either one if either one got custody. The procedures were performed, and it turned out that M was carrying triplets. Although E.D. expressed her desire to be in the delivery room for the birth, gestational carrier wanted her husband there instead, and so gestational carrier did not tell intended parents about the scheduled C-section. The children were born but required neonatal intensive care. Forms were signed by M with the hospital so F could take the children home with him. M then decided she was going to take the children home with her. F and E.D. were ambushed when they arrived to take the children with them. Hospital told them to seek legal advice and help. Even though Hospital staff had represented to F that the triplets had been discharged to M, the triplets remained for an additional two days, until Thursday, November 27th. On that day, gestational carrier took the babies to her home in Corry, Pennsylvania. F sued. M did not challenge the validity of the Surrogacy Contract. The trial court held hearings on the issue of standing. The court, sua sponte, voided the surrogacy contract as against public policy for, among other things, failure to specifically name a 'legal mother,' 'particularly if something were to happen to [intended parents], or if they were to decide not to take custody of the children.' The court further found M was the 'legal mother' of the triplets. the court concluded that M 'would most likely still have third-party standing in loco parentis' to seek custody, even if she were not the 'legal mother' of the children. The court eventually awarded primary physical custody to M. The court also entered an order in M’s suit terminating egg donor's parental rights. F appealed both orders.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co