Unable to conceive, the New Jersey couple did what an increasing number of 21st-century parents have done: they got an egg from an anonymous donor, and made an agreement with another woman to carry the child for them.And knowing that there are any number of ways that having a child by surrogate can end in heartache, they tried to protect against it. They had the surrogate legally renounce her right to the child, and had a judge pre-emptively order that their names appear on the birth certificate.
But for all their efforts, their case has become an object lesson in how much modern babymaking has outpaced the law, leaving even the most careful would-be parents relying on little more than crossed fingers.
On Wednesday the New Jersey Supreme Court deadlocked over how to handle the wife’s plea to be named the mother of the child that she and her husband are raising, ending a lengthy legal battle while providing little new clarity. The state had sued, successfully, to strip the wife’s name from the birth certificate.
Read the article
Tags: fertility law, Surrogacy. surrogate mother, surrogate fathers, surrogate mothers, third party reproduction, trying to conceive
It is unfortunate that the ruling in 1988 about Baby M still has affect today. Reproductive medicine has come a long way since then and the laws still need to catch up to new ways of family building.
As the article states, “an appeals court … siding with state officials who argued adoption was the only option for a mother with no genetic connection to a child.” Adoption is NOT the only available option for mothers and the court would be wise to treat the couple with this in mind.