Source: https://www.stangelawfirm.com/Articles/Surrogacy-Agreements-The-Latest-Case-Law-and-Drafting-Tools.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 19:51:54+00:00

Document:
According to a 2014 New York Times article, there is no federal surrogacy law, and state laws vary wildly. Seventeen (17) states have laws permitting surrogacy, twenty-one (21) states have no law or published cases regarding surrogacy, in five (5) states surrogacy contracts are void and unenforceable, and in Washington D.C. surrogacy contracts carry criminal penalties.1 The results of such wide-ranging laws from state to state can be catastrophic.
In one story of the effect of state laws on surrogacy contracts, experienced surrogate mother Crystal Kelley executed a surrogacy contract with intended parents in the state of Connecticut. An embryo, developed by joining the intended mother's egg with the intended father's sperm, was placed in Kelley's uterus. Five months into the pregnancy, an ultrasound revealed the baby suffered from cleft lip, brain cyst and heart defects. The surrogacy contract required the surrogate to terminate the pregnancy at the request of the intended parents. For obvious public policy and moral reasons, this provision cannot be enforceable, however, it could be a basis for the intended parents to sue the surrogate for damages.
The surrogate (Kelley) offered her services based on her financial situation and in expectation of financial gain. Certainly she could not afford to pay damages if the intended parents sought them. In an attempt to resolve the matter, the intended parents offered to pay Kelley $10,000.00 if she would terminate the pregnancy. Kelley refused, and fled to Michigan, where surrogacy contracts are not enforced.
Had Kelley remained in Connecticut, the law in that state treats the biological parents as the legal parents, and Kelley would have been required to turn the child over to the intended parents at birth. After her refusal to terminate the pregnancy, the intended parents notified Kelley that they would take custody of the child after the birth as planned, but would then surrender the baby to the state under Connecticut's safe haven law. Kelley did not agree that this would be the best option for the child, but she would have no choice if she remained in Connecticut.
Alabama: The courts are generally favorable. However, statutory language exempts surrogacy from adoption laws and prohibitions on baby selling. In 1996, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals gave implicit recognition to a surrogacy arrangement when it awarded custody of a child in a divorce case to the wife who had no biological relationship to the child.
Alaska: There is no law governing surrogacy. The courts generally are favorable. In 1989, the Alaska Supreme Court equated surrogacy with adoption.
Arizona: An Arizona statute forbids "surrogate parent contracts" whether they be traditional or gestational. It provides that in a surrogacy situation the surrogate is the legal mother of the child or children and, if she is married, her husband is the father. However, the Arizona Court of Appeals, a court of intermediate jurisdiction, ruled in 1994, that the parentage presumption was rebuttable as to the intended mother.
Arkansas: Arkansas law is highly favorable to surrogacy. There is a statute declaring surrogacy agreements valid. The statute details several types of parentage situations and clearly establishes rights in each situation. More than once, the Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled in favor of intended parents.
California: California law, as established in rulings of the California Supreme Court, is very favorable to surrogacy. In the notable cases of Calvert v. Johnson (1993) and Buzzanca v. Buzzanca (1998), California first established and then reinforced its position that intent governs in the determination of parentage in gestational surrogacy situations.
Colorado: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
Connecticut: There is no legal objection to surrogacy arrangements. With regard to pre-birth orders, the Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that the State Office of Vital Statistics of the Connecticut Department of Health must comply with such orders even when the intended parents have no biological relationship to the child(ren).
District of Columbia: The District of Columbia forbids surrogacy. Those who violate the statute may be fined up to $10,000, given a prison sentence of up to one year, or both.
Florida: Florida statutes permit both traditional and gestational surrogacy. Traditional surrogacy arrangements, known as "pre-planned adoption agreements," are linked to the state adoption statute. Gestational surrogacy agreements are permitted only between legally married couples.
Georgia: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
Hawaii: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
Idaho: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
Illinois: Illinois has a statute highly favorable to gestational surrogacy which governs the process from contract formation to the issuance of birth certificates. It applies to single parents who have furnished their own gametes or heterosexual couples where at least one person has furnished his or her own gametes.
Indiana: Under Indiana law, surrogacy contracts are "void and unenforceable." Nevertheless, a few judges will grant pre-birth orders.
Iowa: The courts are generally favorable. Although Iowa has no surrogacy statute, the Iowa Code exempts a "surrogate mother arrangement" from criminal provisions regarding the sale or purchase of human beings.
Kansas: There is no law governing surrogacy but two opinions of the Attorney General argued that surrogacy contracts are void as against public policy.
Kentucky: There is no law governing surrogacy. The Kentucky Supreme Court has indicated that surrogacy contracts are voidable by a party to the arrangement.
Louisiana: A Louisiana statute declares traditional surrogacy agreements to be void, unenforceable, and contrary to public policy. The statute does not address gestational surrogacy. However, many courts are not gestational surrogacy friendly.
Maine: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
Maryland: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable. However, an Attorney General's opinion from 2000 argued that compensated surrogacy contracts are illegal but did not oppose post-birth adoptions indicating that the judge would have to consider the best interests of the child(ren).
Massachusetts: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
Michigan: Michigan law forbids surrogacy. Individuals who enter into surrogacy arrangements may be fined up to $50,000 and imprisoned for up to five years.
Minnesota: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
Mississippi: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
Missouri: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
Montana: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
Nebraska: Under Nebraska law "a surrogate parenthood contract entered into shall be void and unenforceable." This provision applies to compensated surrogacy agreements in which the surrogate "is compensated for bearing a child of a man who is not her husband."
Nevada: Gestational surrogacy agreements are permitted only between legally married (heterosexual) couples.
New Hampshire: New Hampshire law permits married heterosexual couples to become intended parents in traditional or gestational surrogacy arrangements where one partner has furnished a gamete. The statute does not appear to sanction gestational surrogacy arrangements in which a donor egg was used.
New Jersey: New Jersey forbids traditional surrogacy but is friendly toward gestational surrogacy, remunerated or compassionate. Although the Attorney General opposes the granting of pre-birth orders in gestational surrogacy cases involving an egg donor, the courts frequently issue such orders anyway.
New Mexico: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
New York: New York forbids surrogacy. Anyone who enters into a surrogacy arrangement may be fined up to $10,000. Those who facilitate surrogacy arrangements, e.g. lawyers and agencies, are fined in the first instance and, for a second offense, are guilty of a felony.
North Carolina: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
North Dakota: North Dakota law forbids traditional surrogacy but permits gestational surrogacy.
Ohio: The Ohio courts are deeply divided over the status of surrogacy. Accordingly, some judges are loath to grant pre-birth orders.
Oklahoma: Oklahoma has no law on surrogacy. An Attorney-General's opinion from 1983 that pre-dated the rise of gestational surrogacy declared that compensated surrogacy contracts violated the state's statutory prohibition on child trafficking.
Oregon: The courts are generally surrogacy friendly and they will issue declarations of paternity.
Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania has no law governing surrogacy. Some more conservative judges will not grant pre-birth orders. The Pennsylvania adoption statute provides for the post-birth adoption of a child born through surrogacy in the county of the intended parents' domicile.
Rhode Island: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
South Carolina: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
South Dakota: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
Tennessee: Tennessee has a statute that "expressly authorize(s) the surrogate birth process." It defines surrogacy as comprising two situations: 1) gestational surrogacy where both intended parents furnish the gametes and 2) gestational surrogacy where the intended father furnishes the sperm and the surrogate relinquishes the child to him and his wife.
Texas: Texas permits surrogacy but has a complicated statute requiring judicial approval of contracts in advance. The provisions are so unwieldy that a group of surrogates petitioned the state legislature to have the law amended or repealed.
Utah: Utah has a statute permitting gestational surrogacy. It forbids traditional surrogacy and also does not allow the surrogate's husband to act as the sperm donor. At least one intended parent must have furnished (a) gamete(s).
Vermont: There is no law governing surrogacy but the courts are generally favorable.
Virginia: Virginia permits surrogacy but has a statute so complicated that the common practice for Virginia births is to file an action post-birth for amendment of the birth certificate.
Washington: Washington statutes permit uncompensated surrogacy arrangements but declare compensated ones void and unenforceable. Those involved in the latter are guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
West Virginia: The courts are generally favorable. A statute prohibiting human trafficking exempts fees and expenses in surrogacy arrangements.
Wisconsin: The courts are generally favorable. A statute governing the collection of vital statistics specifically directs the responsible authorities to place the names of the intended parents on the birth certificate once a court determines parental rights.
Traditional surrogacy is the process by which a surrogate mother is inseminated with the intended father (or another's) sperm, and is biologically related to the baby. Traditional surrogacy creates a legal presumption of parentage for the mother in every state. Traditional surrogacy is not recommended unless the parties are related or very close friends. Traditional surrogacy is much riskier than gestational surrogacy, because the surrogate mother has legal rights to the child if she changes her mind. Traditional surrogacy has been criticized by some opponents as, "baby selling." Other critics worry that this practice takes advantage of lower income women by exploiting them for surrogacy services. Certainly, when advising clients about traditional surrogacy, be sure that the clients understand the risk. Even a relative or close friend can have second thoughts when the biological relationship to a child is involved.
These cases demonstrate the difficult issues that can take place when reproductive technology is utilized. For this reason, it is important that attorneys advise their clients of the legal implications of their decisions beforehand to help ensure they avoid costly legal battles later.
Certainly this is a precarious area of practice, with many uncertainties to consider when advising clients. In states where there are no surrogacy laws, the careful drafting of the surrogacy agreement will certainly help to show the court the intent of the parties, but the results are still uncertain. Clients should be very clear about the potential for a donor to intervene and upset the surrogacy process, challenging the parental rights of the intended parents.
(ii) assume sole responsibility for the support of the child immediately upon his or her birth.
(b) The man and the woman who are the intended parents must both be parties to the gestational agreement.
(c) A gestational agreement is infra vide for payment of consideration.
Sample gestational surrogate contracts may be found online. Most sample contracts provide that the contract may be terminated prior to transplant of the embryo.39 Attorneys may find using these sample contracts helpful, but need to carefully review the sample contracts to make sure the terms and provisions are enforceable in their client's state.
The parties need to discuss potential issues (birth defects, safety of the surrogate mother, etc.) before they occur and include in the surrogacy agreement how they plan to deal with these issues and the penalties for breaching the agreement.
Surrogacy agreements are more common now than ever, which is evidence by their appearance in the Uniform Parentage Act, state laws and online. However, surrogacy is still considered a unique option for family creation. It is important for attorneys representing both intended parents and surrogate mothers (and their spouses) to be able to advise them on the effects of surrogacy and employment under the Family Medical Leave Act. The intended parents are eligible for up to twelve (12) weeks of unpaid leave, "for the birth of their child," and eligibility extends for up to twelve (12) months after the birth. Surrogate mothers and are also entitled to leave under the FMLA Section 825.120, "for incapacity due to pregnancy, for prenatal care, or for her own serious health condition following the birth of the child".42 Parties to a surrogacy agreement may not be comfortable addressing their entitlement to leave with their employer - advising them of this benefit will help them to take advantage of leave under the FMLA.
(A) The gestational surrogate certifies that she is not the biological mother of the child, and that she is carrying the child for the intended parents.
(B) The husband, if any, of the gestational surrogate certifies that he is not the biological father of the child.
(C) The intended mother certifies that she provided or an egg donor donated the egg from which the child being carried by the gestational surrogate was conceived.
(D) The intended father certifies that he provided or a sperm donor donated the sperm from which the child being carried by the gestational surrogate was conceived.
(E) A physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches in the State of Illinois certifies that the child being carried by the gestational surrogate is the biological child of the intended mother or the intended father or both and that neither the gestational surrogate nor the gestational surrogate's husband, if any, is a biological parent of the child being carried by the gestational surrogate.
(E-5) The attorneys for the intended parents and the gestational surrogate each certifies that the parties entered into a gestational surrogacy contract intended to satisfy the requirements of Section 25 of the Gestational Surrogacy Act with respect to the child.
In any legal situation involving the birth and parentage of a child, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to create an exhaustive list of everything that could go wrong. A few possibilities have been addressed previously - birth defects, a surrogate mother absconding to a less hostile jurisdiction, and threats of lawsuits. Drafting a thorough and enforceable surrogacy agreement can help to deal with these issues. The most common (and well-known) problem with surrogacy agreements is every intended parent's worst nightmare - the surrogate mother refuses to relinquish the child.
Surrogacy leapt into the national spotlight in the late 1980s, when the case of Baby M was filed, resulting in intense media coverage. In this case, the intended parents, the Sterns, paid Mary Beth Whitehead $10,000.00 to be inseminated with Mr. Stern's sperm, deliver a child, and give up parental rights to the Sterns. After the birth of the child, Whitehead refused to relinquish the child. Whitehead absconded with the child to Florida, but was eventually located. In the first major surrogacy ruling, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that the surrogacy contract was void and unenforceable under its current law. The Court found that since Stern was the biological father, he should be awarded custody and the case was remanded to determine what amount of visitation would be appropriate for Whitehead.48 The case has since been superseded by the passage of New Jersey laws regulating surrogacy contracts.
Since the Baby M decision, multiple state courts have dealt with, "What could go wrong?" scenarios in surrogacy agreements. The results vary widely, as there is no federal law and each state deals with the issue on its own.
In one example, a Tucson immigration attorney executed a gestational surrogacy agreement with a close friend as her gestational surrogate, after cancer treatment made her unable to conceive. The attorney used zygotes she and her ex-husband had frozen shortly before her cancer treatment. The ex-husband had relinquished any rights to the zygotes during the divorce process. The attorney attempted to procure a pre-birth order for parentage during the surrogate's pregnancy, but was denied, as gestational surrogacy agreements are illegal and invalid in Arizona. After birth, she could not sign birth certificate or take the infant home from the hospital. The hospital alerted child services, who became involved in an effort to try to keep the intended mother away from the child. The gestational surrogate had to move in with the intended mother to avoid further action from child services. Ultimately, the attorney was able to complete an adoption of the child.49 This was a difficult way for the intended mother, an attorney herself, to learn the severe repercussions of state law on surrogacy agreements.
In this example, the intended parents were able to win custody of the child. However, the court would not enforce the portion of the surrogacy contract that required the traditional surrogate to terminate her parental rights. As such, Monica could ask the court on remand for visitation with the child. Clearly this outcome is not ideal and very likely came as a shocking result to the intended parents. A knowledgeable attorney should advise clients that traditional surrogacy is not a dependable process regarding securing parental rights. Any court would be loathe to enforce an agreement requiring a biological mother to terminate her parental rights. As seen in the above example, even a close friendship is not enough to deter the emotional and legal connection of mother and child.
This is only an example, but accurately describes the catastrophic consequences when parents are not advised of the impact of international law on surrogacy agreements. Currently, the only rules to apply to international surrogacy are those adopted under the Hague Convention. However, the Hague Convention fails to address some of the issues unique to surrogacy. The differences are apparent in two areas: first, the Hague Convention deals with adoption. Money is not traditionally exchanged in the adoption process, and the Convention discourages it. However, surrogacy is usually a service performed for payment. Disputes with regard to payment under a surrogacy agreement are not addressed by the Hague Convention.
Based on the lack of international guidelines for surrogacy and the shortcomings of applying the Hague Convention, clients should be forewarned about the perils of international surrogacy.
1 Tamar Lewis, Surrogates and Couples Face Maze of Laws, State by State, New York Times, Sep. 17, 2014 available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/us/surrogates-and-couples-face-a-maze-of-laws-state-by-state.html?_r=0.
2 Elizabeth Cohen, Surrogate offered $10,000 to abort baby, CNN (March 6, 2013, 2:58 PM) http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health/surrogacy-kelley-legal-battle/.
3 See, U.S. Surrogacy Laws by State, The Surrogacy Experience, available at: http://www.thesurrogacyexperience.com/surrogate-mothers/the-law/u-s-surrogacy-law-by-state/.
5 Gestational Surrogacy Act, 750 ILCS 47/1 et seq.
8 Christina M. Eastman, Statutory Regulation of Legal Parentage in Cases of Artificial Insemination by Donor: A New Frontier of Gender Discrimination, McGeorge Law Review Vol. 41, 371 at 376 (2010) available at http://www.mcgeorge.edu/documents/publications/MLR4107_Eastman_ver_05__FINAL.pdf.
11 Mark Hansen, As Surrogacy Becomes More Popular, Legal Problems Proliferate, ABA Journal (March 1, 2011 11:40 AM) http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/as_surrogacy_becomes_more_popular_legal_problems_proliferate.
12 Parentage Act Summary, http://www.uniformlaws.org/ Iast visited March 30, 2015).
13 Christina M. Eastman, Statutory Regulation of Legal Parentage in Cases of Artificial Insemination by Donor: A New Frontier of Gender Discrimination, McGeorge Law Review Vol. 41, 371 at 373 (2010) available at http://www.mcgeorge.edu/documents/publications/MLR4107_Eastman_ver_05__FINAL.pdf.
18 Steven H. Snyder, I'm a Divorce Lawyer, So why should I read about ART?, American Bar Association (2011) available at http://www.americanbar.org.
23 Litowitz v. Litowitz , 48 P.3d 261, 264 (Wash. 2002).
27 Stratford v. Stratford, No. 300925, 2012 WL 516059, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2012).
31 Szafranski v. Dunston , 993 N.E.2d 502 (Ill. App. 2013).
35 Gestational Surrogacy Act, 750 ILCS 47/25 (2005).
36 Uniform Parentage Act (2002) available at http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/parentage/upa_final_2002.pdf.
37 Tamar Lewis, Surrogates and Couples Face Maze of Laws, State by State, New York Times, Sep. 17, 2014 available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/us/surrogates-and-couples-face-a-maze-of-laws-state-by-state.html?_r=0.
38 Gestational Surrogacy Act, 750 ILCS 47/15 (2005).
39 Sample GS Contract, All About Surrogacy, http://www.allaboutsurrogacy.com/sample_contracts/GScontract1.htm. See Appendix A.
40 Gestational Surrogacy Act, 750 ILCS 47/30 (2005).
43 Gestational Surrogacy Act, 750 ILCS 47/35 (2005).
45 Parentage Act Summary, http://www.uniformlaws.org/ Iast visited March 30, 2015).
46 Uniform Parentage Act (2002) available at http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/parentage/upa_final_2002.pdf.
47 Tamar Lewis, Surrogates and Couples Face Maze of Laws, State by State, New York Times, Sep. 17, 2014 available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/18/us/surrogates-and-couples-face-a-maze-of-laws-state-by-state.html?_r=0.
48 Matter of Baby M., 109 N.J. 396 (N.J. 1988).
49 Maria Ines Taracena, Surrogate Sanctions, How one Tucson mother's dream to have a child turned into a legal nightmare, Tucson Weekly, January 29, 2015 available at http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/surrogate-sanctions/Content?oid=4910825.
50 Rosecky v. Schissel, 833 N.W.2d 634 (Wisc. 2013).
51 S.N. v. M.B., 935 N.E.2d 463 at 464-65 (Ohio App. 2010).
55 Nicole Grether and Adam May, Going global for a family: Why international surrogacy is booming, Aljazeera America (May 13, 2014 at 3:00 PM) http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/5/12/going-global-forafamilywhyinternationalsurrogacyisbooming.html.
56 Tamar Lewin, A Surrogacy Agency that Delivered Heartache, The New York Times, July 27, 2014 available at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/28/us/surrogacy-agency-planet-hospital-delivered-heartache.html?_r=0.
58 Sarah Mortazavi, It Takes a Village to Make a Child: Creating Guidelines for International Surrogacy, Georgetown Law Journal Vol. 100 (2014) available at http://georgetownlawjournal.org.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.