Warning
Info
- - tl;dr
- - ICRA
- - Facts & Holding
- - DeepDive
0 0
Supreme Court of New Jersey - 109 N.J. 396
Tags: Contracts, Public policy, S
tl;dr:
A couple entered into a surrogacy contract with a woman, but once the woman had the baby, she did not want to return her to the couple.Video Summary
Case Summary
In the landmark family law case of Baby M (1988), the New Jersey Supreme Court considered if a surrogacy contract was valid and enforceable. The case involved a custody dispute over a child born to a surrogate. William and Elizabeth Stern (plaintiffs), a couple unable to have children due to Elizabeth's multiple sclerosis, contracted with Mary Beth Whitehead (defendant) for her to carry their child. The contract stipulated that Whitehead would receive $10,000 and relinquish her parental rights after giving birth. However, Whitehead changed her mind, leading to a legal battle over the child's custody and parentage.
The trial court sided with the Sterns, ruling the surrogacy contract was valid and enforceable. Whitehead appealed, and the Supreme Court reversed the decision, finding the contract invalid and unenforceable. They applied a "best interests of the child" standard and determined the contract violated public policy by treating children as commodities and undermining family relationships. The court recognized Whitehead's parental rights, noting her emotional bond with the child.
The case was remanded to determine custody based on the child's best interests, possibly through joint custody or visitation rights for both parents. The damages against Whitehead were also vacated. This case was significant as the first state supreme court case challenging surrogacy contract legality, sparking national debate on the ethical, social, and legal implications of surrogacy.
DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition
The court declared a surrogacy contract illegal and voided it due to the fee for surrendering parental rights. The natural mother's parental rights were restored, and the adoption by the wife/stepparent was nullified. The surrogacy contract was unenforceable due to its primary purpose of achieving private adoption, which is disfavored in New Jersey, and the use of money to obtain an adoption, which is illegal and potentially criminal. The court found that the lower court may have erred in not considering the adequacy of legal advice provided to Mary Beth Whitehead, the potential conflict of interest and lack of transparency on the part of the Infertility Center, and the best interests of the child and the natural mother's rights. The court ruled that termination of a natural parent's rights cannot be based solely on the child's welfare, and surrender and consent to adoption through private placement are insufficient grounds for termination. The appellate court found the trial court's ex parte order transferring custody to the father in a surrogacy dispute to be erroneous due to the unenforceability and illegality of the surrogacy contract. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The trial court must determine the type of visitation, whether it will have conditions, and when it should start, considering the best interests of the child and the parents' interests. The Legislature has the power to regulate surrogacy subject to constitutional constraints.
LSD+ Case Briefs
Features
- DeepDive for detailed case analysis
- Over 50,000 existing case briefs
- Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
- Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
- Social learning with chat and high points
Over 50,000 Cases Briefed
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
14-Day Free Trial
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Integrated Legal Dictionary
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Brief anything. Instantly.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Social Learning with Chat and High Points
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Real-Time Brief Feedback
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.