Key points of the case

The article discusses the landmark case of In re Baby M, which was a pivotal legal decision regarding
surrogacy in New Jersey. Here are the key points:

Background of the Case: The case involved William and Elizabeth Stern, who, due to health concerns,
sought to have a child through surrogacy. They entered into a contract with Mary Beth Whitehead, who
agreed to carry and give birth to the Sterns' child in exchange for $10,000. The contract stipulated that
Whitehead would relinquish all parental rights after the birth

Legal and Ethical Issues: The New Jersey Supreme Court was tasked with determining the validity of the
surrogacy contract. The court ultimately ruled that the contract was invalid, citing that it conflicted with
state law and public policy. The court expressed concerns about the commodification of women and
the implications of separating a mother from her child

Custody Dispute: After the birth of the child, named Melissa, Whitehead struggled with the emotional
impact of giving up her child and sought to retain custody. The Sterns, having taken the child home,
initiated legal proceedings to enforce the surrogacy contract and gain permanent custody. The trial
court initially ruled in favor of the Sterns, but the case raised significant questions about the best
interests of the child versus the validity of the surrogacy agreement

Court's Findings: The trial court found that while the surrogacy contract was valid, the ultimate decision
regarding custody had to prioritize the best interests of the child. The court recognized Whitehead as a
fit mother but ultimately awarded custody to the Sterns, allowing Whitehead limited visitation rights

Appeal and Outcome: Whitehead appealed the decision, arguing that the surrogacy contract was
invalid and that it deprived her of her constitutional rights. The case attracted significant attention and
numerous amicus briefs from various organizations expressing diverse views on surrogacy and parental
rights. The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision underscored the complexities surrounding surrogacy,
parental rights, and the legal implications of such contracts

This case set a precedent for future surrogacy arrangements and highlighted the need for clear legal
frameworks governing such agreements.

How did the court justify invalidating the surrogacy contract

Sources

Answer

The New Jersey Supreme Court justified the invalidation of the surrogacy contract in the In re Baby M
case on several grounds:

Conflict with State Law and Public Policy: The court determined that the surrogacy contract was illegal
and conflicted with existing laws and public policy in New Jersey. The court expressed concerns that the
payment for surrogacy could be deemed illegal, potentially criminal, and degrading to women,
highlighting the ethical implications of commodifying motherhood

Parental Rights and Best Interests of the Child: The court emphasized that the best interests of the child
must take precedence over the contractual agreement. While the trial court initially ruled in favor of the
Sterns based on the contract, the Supreme Court ultimately voided the termination of Whitehead's
parental rights, asserting that the contract's provisions did not align with the child's welfare

Voluntary Surrogacy without Compensation: The court acknowledged that a woman could voluntarily
agree to act as a surrogate without payment, as long as she was not bound by a contract to surrender
her child. This distinction was crucial in their ruling, as it allowed for the possibility of surrogacy
arrangements under different legal frameworks, should the legislature choose to establish them

Legislative Authority: The court noted that while it did not support the current surrogacy contract, it did
not preclude the legislature from creating laws that could govern such arrangements in the future,
indicating that the issue of surrogacy could be revisited and regulated by lawmakers

Overall, the court's decision was rooted in a combination of legal, ethical, and child welfare
considerations, leading to the conclusion that the surrogacy contract was invalid.

In the **In re Baby M** case, the New Jersey Supreme Court cited several key legal precedents and
principles in justifying the invalidation of the surrogacy contract:
1. **Public Policy Considerations**: The court emphasized that the surrogacy contract conflicted with
state laws and public policy. It referenced the principle that contracts which violate public policy are
unenforceable. The court expressed concerns that the payment for surrogacy could be viewed as
illegal or criminal and potentially degrading to women, thus undermining the dignity of motherhood.

2. **Parentage and Custody Laws**: The court considered existing statutes related to parentage and
custody, particularly the New Jersey Parentage Act. It noted that the act was designed to protect the
rights of biological parents and ensure that parental rights could not be easily terminated through
contractual agreements. This legal framework was crucial in determining that the surrogacy contract
did not align with the intent of the law.

3. **Constitutional Rights**: The court acknowledged the constitutional rights of individuals, including
the rights of parents to raise their children. It highlighted that any agreement that sought to
permanently sever a biological mother's rights without due process was problematic and could not be
upheld.

4. **Previous Case Law**: The court referenced earlier cases that established the importance of the
best interests of the child in custody disputes. This principle guided the court's decision to prioritize the
welfare of the child over the contractual obligations of the parties involved.

5. **Legislative Intent**: The court indicated that while it did not support the surrogacy contract in its
current form, it recognized the possibility for the legislature to create laws governing surrogacy
arrangements in the future. This acknowledgment of legislative authority underscored the court's
view that the existing legal framework was inadequate to address the complexities of surrogacy.

These precedents and principles collectively informed the court's decision to invalidate the surrogacy
contract, emphasizing the need for legal protections for both children and parents in such
arrangements.

Citations:

[1] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/22488272/44d2aa54-28d7-4bcb-a66c-
316f3e5abaf9/First-Surrogacy-Case-In-re-Baby-M-537-A.2d-1227-109-N.J.-396-N.J.-02_03_1988.pdf

In the **In re Baby M** case, several main legal arguments were used to support the validity of the
surrogacy contract:
1. **Intent of the Parties**: The trial court found that both the Sterns and Mary Beth Whitehead
entered into the surrogacy contract with clear intent and mutual agreement. The parties had a
shared understanding of the arrangement, which was to allow the Sterns to have a child while
Whitehead would carry and deliver the child, subsequently relinquishing her parental rights.

2. **Best Interests of the Child**: The trial court argued that the surrogacy contract was valid because
it was in the best interests of the child. The court emphasized that the arrangement was designed to
provide a stable family environment for the child, with Mr. Stern as the biological father and Mrs. Stern
intending to adopt. The trial court concluded that the child's welfare would be best served by placing
her with the Sterns, who were prepared to provide for her upbringing.

3. **Legislative Gaps**: The trial court noted that existing laws regarding adoption and parental rights
did not explicitly address surrogacy contracts. It reasoned that since the legislature did not specifically
prohibit such agreements, the surrogacy contract should be considered valid. The court maintained
that the statutes governing adoption and parental rights were not applicable to surrogacy
arrangements, as they were not designed with surrogacy in mind.

4. **Good Faith of the Parties**: The trial court highlighted the good faith efforts of both parties in
entering the contract. It acknowledged that both the Sterns and Whitehead acted out of genuine
motivations—Whitehead wanting to help another couple and the Sterns seeking to start a family. This
good faith was seen as a supportive factor for the contract's validity.

5. **Precedent and Legal Reasoning**: The trial court's decision was influenced by legal reasoning that
emphasized the autonomy of individuals to enter into contracts regarding reproduction, as long as the
agreements did not contravene public policy or existing laws. The court argued that the parties had
the right to make decisions regarding their reproductive choices and family arrangements.

These arguments collectively formed the basis for the trial court's initial ruling that upheld the validity
of the surrogacy contract, despite the subsequent Supreme Court decision to invalidate it based on
broader public policy considerations.
Citations:

[1] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/22488272/44d2aa54-28d7-4bcb-a66c-
316f3e5abaf9/First-Surrogacy-Case-In-re-Baby-M-537-A.2d-1227-109-N.J.-396-N.J.-02_03_1988.pdf

The ethical arguments against the surrogacy contract in the **In re Baby M** case revolved around
several key concerns:

1. **Commodification of Women and Children**: Critics argued that surrogacy contracts commodify
both women and children, treating them as products to be bought and sold. The court expressed
concern that paying a woman to bear a child could be seen as degrading, reducing motherhood to a
transaction rather than a profound relational and emotional experience.

2. **Exploitation of Vulnerable Women**: There were ethical concerns about the potential
exploitation of women, particularly those in financially precarious situations. The argument was that
women might feel pressured to become surrogates primarily for monetary gain, which raises questions
about their autonomy and the genuine voluntariness of their consent.

3. **Emotional and Psychological Impact**: The court highlighted the emotional toll on the surrogate
mother, Mary Beth Whitehead, who faced significant psychological distress when confronted with the
reality of relinquishing her child. The ethical implications of forcing a woman to surrender her child after
birth were deemed troubling, as it could lead to long-term emotional consequences for both the
mother and the child.

4. **Best Interests of the Child**: The ethical principle of prioritizing the best interests of the child
was central to the court's reasoning. The court argued that the surrogacy contract's terms did not
adequately consider the child's emotional and psychological needs, particularly the bond between the
mother and child. The potential for harm to the child, given the circumstances of the surrogacy
arrangement, was a significant ethical concern.

5. **Legal and Moral Precedents**: The court referenced broader societal and legal norms that
prioritize family integrity and the natural bonds between parents and children. The ethical
argument posited that the surrogacy contract undermined these norms by attempting to sever the
natural maternal bond through a contractual agreement.
These ethical arguments collectively contributed to the court's decision to invalidate the surrogacy
contract, reflecting a broader concern for the implications of such arrangements on women, children,
and societal values.

Citations:

[1] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/22488272/44d2aa54-28d7-4bcb-a66c-
316f3e5abaf9/First-Surrogacy-Case-In-re-Baby-M-537-A.2d-1227-109-N.J.-396-N.J.-02_03_1988.pdf

The New Jersey Supreme Court's ruling in **In re Baby M** highlighted several important
considerations regarding the consent of the surrogate mother, Mary Beth Whitehead:

1. **Binding Surrogacy Contracts**: The court invalidated the surrogacy contract that bound
Whitehead to surrender her parental rights and the child to the Sterns. It ruled that such a binding
agreement was illegal and conflicted with state laws and public policy[1].

2. **Emotional Impact on the Surrogate**: The court acknowledged the significant emotional toll on
Whitehead, who faced immense distress when confronted with relinquishing her child after birth. The
court recognized that the surrogacy arrangement did not adequately consider the surrogate's
emotional wellbeing and the potential long-term consequences[1].

3. **Voluntariness of Consent**: While the court recognized Whitehead's initial consent to act as a
surrogate, it questioned whether her consent was truly voluntary given the payment involved and
the binding nature of the contract. The court expressed concerns about the potential exploitation of
vulnerable women in surrogacy arrangements[1].

4. **Restoration of Parental Rights**: By invalidating the termination of Whitehead's parental rights,

the court restored her status as the child's mother. This decision underscored the court's view that a
woman's parental rights cannot be easily severed through a contractual agreement, regardless of the
circumstances[1].

5. **Potential for Voluntary Surrogacy**: The court acknowledged that a woman could voluntarily
agree to act as a surrogate without payment, as long as she was not bound by a contract to surrender
the child. This distinction allowed for the possibility of surrogacy arrangements under different legal
frameworks, should the legislature choose to establish them[1].
In summary, the court's ruling highlighted the importance of protecting the surrogate mother's rights,
emotional wellbeing, and the voluntariness of her consent, while also recognizing the potential for
surrogacy arrangements under a different legal framework.

Citations:

[1] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/22488272/44d2aa54-28d7-4bcb-a66c-
316f3e5abaf9/First-Surrogacy-Case-In-re-Baby-M-537-A.2d-1227-109-N.J.-396-N.J.-02_03_1988.pdf

The key arguments presented by the surrogate mother's legal team in the **In re Baby M** case
included:

1. **Validity of Consent**: The legal team argued that Mary Beth Whitehead's consent to the
surrogacy contract was valid and should be respected. They contended that she had willingly entered
into the agreement with the understanding of her role and responsibilities, and that her initial decision
to become a surrogate was made out of a desire to help another couple.

2. **Emotional Bond**: The team emphasized the emotional connection Whitehead developed with
the child during pregnancy. They argued that this bond was significant and that the court should
recognize her maternal instincts and feelings as valid, which complicated the notion of her consent to
relinquish parental rights.

3. **Best Interests of the Child**: The legal team maintained that the best interests of the child should
be considered in the ruling. They argued that Whitehead, as the biological mother, had a natural right
to raise her child and that separating her from the child could cause emotional harm to both mother
and child.

4. **Public Policy Considerations**: The surrogate's legal team argued that invalidating the contract
would set a dangerous precedent that undermines the autonomy of women to make decisions
about their bodies and reproductive choices. They contended that the court should support the right
of women to enter into surrogacy agreements if they choose to do so voluntarily.

5. **Legislative Framework**: The team pointed out that existing laws did not explicitly prohibit
surrogacy arrangements, suggesting that the court should not invalidate the contract based on a lack
of statutory support. They argued for the recognition of surrogacy as a legitimate family-building
option, advocating for legislative changes rather than judicial invalidation.
These arguments collectively aimed to uphold the validity of the surrogacy contract and support
Whitehead's rights as the biological mother, emphasizing her autonomy, emotional connection to the
child, and the potential implications for future surrogacy arrangements.

Citations:

[1] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/22488272/44d2aa54-28d7-4bcb-a66c-
316f3e5abaf9/First-Surrogacy-Case-In-re-Baby-M-537-A.2d-1227-109-N.J.-396-N.J.-02_03_1988.pdf

The surrogate mother's legal team made several key arguments regarding the validity of the surrogacy
contract:

1. **Whitehead's consent was valid**: The team argued that Mary Beth Whitehead had willingly
entered into the agreement with a clear understanding of her role and responsibilities. They
contended her initial decision to become a surrogate was made out of a desire to help another
couple[1].

2. **Existing laws did not prohibit surrogacy**: The team pointed out that current laws did not explicitly
ban surrogacy arrangements. They argued the court should not invalidate the contract based on a lack
of statutory prohibition, suggesting surrogacy should be recognized as a legitimate family-building
option pending legislative changes[1].

3. **Invalidation would set a dangerous precedent**: The legal team maintained that voiding the
contract would undermine women's autonomy in making decisions about their bodies and
reproductive choices. They argued the court should support the right of women to enter surrogacy
agreements voluntarily[1].

4. **Emotional bond with the child**: The team emphasized the strong emotional connection
Whitehead developed with the baby during pregnancy. They argued this maternal bond complicated
the notion of her consent to relinquish parental rights[1].

5. **Best interests of the child**: The legal team maintained the child's best interests should be
prioritized. They contended Whitehead, as the biological mother, had a natural right to raise her
child and that separating them could cause emotional harm[1].
In summary, Whitehead's team sought to uphold the contract's validity by emphasizing her autonomy,
the lack of legal prohibition, the emotional bond with the child, and the potential implications for future
surrogacy arrangements. However, the court ultimately invalidated the contract based on public policy
considerations.

Citations:

[1] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/22488272/44d2aa54-28d7-4bcb-a66c-
316f3e5abaf9/First-Surrogacy-Case-In-re-Baby-M-537-A.2d-1227-109-N.J.-396-N.J.-02_03_1988.pdf

The surrogate mother's legal team presented several key arguments regarding the fairness of the
surrogacy contract in the **In re Baby M** case:

1. **Mutual Agreement and Good Faith**: The legal team emphasized that both parties—the Sterns
and Whitehead—entered the contract in good faith, with a clear mutual understanding of the
arrangement. They argued that the contract was a voluntary agreement between consenting adults
who sought to fulfill their respective desires: the Sterns to have a child and Whitehead to help another
couple while receiving compensation.

2. **Compensation as Fair Exchange**: The team argued that the $10,000 payment was a fair and
reasonable compensation for Whitehead's time, effort, and the physical demands of pregnancy.
They contended that this financial arrangement did not equate to selling a child but rather
compensated Whitehead for her role in the surrogacy process.

3. **Legitimate Family-Building Option**: The surrogate's legal team framed the contract as a legitimate
means of family building, arguing that it provided an opportunity for the Sterns, who faced infertility
challenges, to have a child. They maintained that the contract was a constructive solution for all parties
involved, particularly for those unable to conceive naturally.

4. **Lack of Legal Prohibition**: The team pointed out that at the time of the agreement, there were no
specific laws in New Jersey that prohibited surrogacy contracts. They argued that the absence of legal
restrictions indicated societal acceptance of such arrangements, thus supporting the fairness of the
contract.

5. **Recognition of Autonomy**: The legal team argued that invalidating the contract would
undermine Whitehead's autonomy and her right to make decisions regarding her body and
reproductive choices. They asserted that the contract allowed her to exercise her agency in a way that
was fair and beneficial to all parties involved.
These arguments collectively sought to establish that the surrogacy contract was fair, consensual,
and aligned with the interests of both the surrogate mother and the intended parents, despite the
court's ultimate decision to invalidate it based on public policy considerations.

Citations:

[1] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/22488272/44d2aa54-28d7-4bcb-a66c-
316f3e5abaf9/First-Surrogacy-Case-In-re-Baby-M-537-A.2d-1227-109-N.J.-396-N.J.-02_03_1988.pdf