Advertisement

Surrogacy and Gestational Carrier Arrangements: Legal Aspects

  • Margaret E. Swain
Chapter

Abstract

Assisted reproduction with gestational carriers is practiced with increasing frequency, but there is little consistency in the laws surrounding this option for family building. The legal goal is to obtain parental rights for those who choose to build their families through surrogacy, but whether this can be accomplished, and how, varies from state to state. Balancing what may be competing interests, and proceeding, in many places, without clear laws, exposes a minefield of complexities. The combined efforts of clinicians, including mental health professionals, and legal experts, allow the majority of these matters to proceed with minimal disruption.

Keywords

gestational surrogacy surrogate carrier guidelines legal 

References

  1. 1.
    In re Baby M., 537 A.2d 1227 (NJ 1988).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kindregan C, McBrien M. Assisted reproductive technology: a lawyer’s guide to emerging law and science. Chicago: ABA Publishing; 2006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hinson D, McBrien M. Surrogacy across America. Family Advocate. 2011;34:2. Surrogacy contract enforcement is prohibited by statute in DC, KY, ND, TX, AZ, NE.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R.R. v. M.H., 426 Mass. 501, 689 N.E. 2d 790 (1998).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    In re Marriage of Moschetta, 25 Cal. App. 4th1218, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 893 (1994).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doe v. Doe, 244 Conn. 403, 710 A.2d 1297 (1998).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Utian WH, Goldfarb JM, Kiwi R, Sheean LA, Auld H, Lisbona H. Preliminary experience with in-vitro fertilization-surrogate gestational pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 1985;52:633–8.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fletcher J, Layton MJ. Parents’ hope reborn with ‘gestational carrier’ [Internet] NJ: 2012 June 3; [cited 2012 December 10]. http://www.northjersey.com/news/156879885_Parents_hope_reborn_with_gestational_carier_html?.
  9. 9.
    Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84, 851 P.2d 776, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 494 (1993).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Belsito v. Clark, 67 Ohio Misc. 2d 54, 644 N.E. 2d 760 (1994).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    In Re Marriage of Buzzanca, 61 Cal. App. 4th 1410, 72 Cal. Rptr. 2d 280 (1998).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Culliton v. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 435 Mass. 285, 756 N.E. 2d 1133 (2001). Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J.F. v. D.B., 879 N.E. 2d 740, 116 Ohio St. 3d 363 (Ohio 2007); J.F. v. D.B,.897 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2006).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Robison v. Hollingsworth, Docket # FD-09-001838-07; 2011 (N.J. Superior Court, Hudson County) NJ.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Recommendations for practices utilizing gestational carrier: an ARM practice committee guideline. Fertil Steril [Internet]. 2012 June 97;6 [cited 2012 Dec. 10]; 1301:[about 8 pp]. http://www.asrm.org;uploadedFiles/ASRM_Content/News_and_Publications/Committee_Opinions/recommendations_for_practices_utilizing_gestational_carriers.pdf.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roberston J. Children of choice: freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton, NJ: The Princeton University Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Skinner v. Oklahoma,, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942), where the Court noted the importance of procreation as among “…the basic civil rights of man,…”, adding that “…marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race”; Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 393 (1923), where the Court indicated that the constitutional freedoms included “the right of an individual to marry, establish a home, and bring up children.”Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 112 S.Ct. 2791 (1992).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bragdon v. Abbott, 118 S.Ct. 2196, 2198 (1998).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rao R. Constitutional Misconceptions. Mich. L. Rev. 1995; 93.1473; Massie AM. Regulating choice: a constitutional law response to Professor John A. Robertson’s Children of Choice. Wash & Lee L Rev. 1995;52:135.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 US 438 (1972).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    United States v. Jacobson, No. 92–5406, slip op. (4th Cir. Sept. 3, 1993) (unpublished), cert. denied, 62 U.S.L.W. 3717, 3722 (U.S. May 2, 1994).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    The Fertility Clinic Success Rate and Certification Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102–493, 42 U.S.C. 263a-1 et seq.).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Woodward v. Commissioner of Social Security, 435 Mass.536, 760 N.E. 2nd 257 (Mass. 202) (1996). However, in a 2012 case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that application of Social Security benefits for a posthumously-conceived child relied on the intestate laws of the particular state in question Astrue v. Capato, 13 S. Ct. 2021 (2012).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Diane L. Johnson et al., v. California Cryobank Ind., et al., 80 Cal. App.4th 1050; 2000.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    http://cbc.ca/news/health/story/2008/12/09/mother.html. Retrieved from the website 09/24/2012; http://ndtv.com/article/world/66-year-old-swiss-woman-gives-birth-to-twins-182896. Retrieved from the website 09/24/2012; Dodge M, Geis G. Stealing Dreams: A fertility clinic scandal. Boston: Northeastern University Press; 2003.
  29. 29.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Law Office of Margaret E. SwainTowsonUSA

Personalised recommendations