Quick Summary
Baby M (plaintiff) William Sterns entered into a surrogacy contract with Mary Whitehead (defendant), where she agreed to carry a child for him and his wife Elizabeth, for a fee. Following the child’s birth, Whitehead struggled emotionally to fulfill her agreement and fled with the baby. The Sterns sued to enforce the contract.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that such a surrogacy contract was invalid due to conflicts with state laws against paying for adoptions and matters of public policy focused on children’s welfare. As a result, they denied enforcement of the contract, restored Mrs. Whitehead’s parental rights, and granted custody to Mr. Stern considering the child’s best interests.
Facts of the Case
William Sterns (plaintiff) and his wife, Elizabeth, were unable to have children. They sought assistance from the Infertility Center of New York (ICNY) for surrogacy options. Mary Whitehead (defendant) agreed to be artificially inseminated with Mr. Sterns’ sperm and carry the child to term.
After birth, she was to surrender the child and her parental rights to the Sternses in exchange for $10,000 from Mr. Sterns and $7,500 to ICNY. Despite concerns about her ability to surrender a child expressed during an ICNY psychological examination, these were not shared with the Sternses or Whitehead.
Whitehead did not seek independent legal counsel and did not inquire about the Sternses’ parenting fitness. After giving birth, Whitehead struggled emotionally with surrendering the baby and eventually fled with the child, leading to a legal battle initiated by Sterns for enforcement of the surrogacy contract.
Procedural History
- The Sternses contacted ICNY to discuss surrogacy options and entered into a surrogacy contract with Mary Whitehead.
- Following the birth of the child and Whitehead’s refusal to surrender her, Sterns sued Whitehead in New Jersey state court to enforce the surrogacy contract.
- The trial court upheld the contract and granted full custody to Stern, with Elizabeth Stern given the option to adopt, while Whitehead was granted limited visitation rights.
- Whitehead appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether a surrogacy contract requiring a mother to surrender her child and parental rights in exchange for payment is valid and enforceable under New Jersey law.
Rule of Law
The surrogacy contract conflicts with statutory provisions and public policy considerations in New Jersey, which prioritize children’s welfare and prohibit payment in connection with adoption placements.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court found that the surrogacy contract was invalid as it directly conflicted with existing statutes that prohibit the use of money in connection with adoptions, require proof of parental unfitness or abandonment before terminating parental rights, and make consent to adoption revocable.
It also conflicted with public policy that emphasizes the child’s best interests and the equal rights of natural parents. The court held that Mrs. Whitehead’s consent given prior to birth was uninformed and less than voluntary due to contractual coercion and monetary inducement.
The court further noted that upholding such contracts could lead to potential exploitation of women and commodification of children. Therefore, it invalidated the contract, restored Mrs. Whitehead’s parental rights, and remanded the issue of visitation rights for further proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of New Jersey decided that the surrogacy contract was invalid due to its conflict with statutory law and public policy. The court denied enforcement of the contract, restored Mrs. Whitehead’s parental rights, voided her termination of parental rights, and voided the adoption by Elizabeth Stern. Custody was granted to Mr. Stern based on the best interests of the child.
Key Takeaways
- The surrogacy contract is unenforceable because it conflicts with New Jersey laws prohibiting payment in adoption-related cases and requirements for termination of parental rights.
- Public policy considerations in New Jersey prioritize the welfare of children and equal parental rights which conflict with the terms of the surrogacy contract.
- The court restored Mary Whitehead’s parental rights and remanded the case for a decision on visitation rights.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What factors determine the enforceability of a contract when conflicting with public policy?
A contract may be unenforceable if it conflicts with established public policy principles. Courts look at whether the contract affects society’s interest negatively or undermines legal standards meant to protect citizens. They evaluate whether the contractual terms contradict statutes or legal precedents that reflect societal values and priorities.
- For example: A contract for the sale of organs would be unenforceable as it conflicts with laws and ethical views on the commodification of human body parts.
How does the law view contracts that involve payment for parental rights?
Generally, contracts that involve direct payment in exchange for parental rights are seen as impermissible because they treat children as commodities and pose ethical and exploitative risks. Adoption laws often prohibit the exchange of money beyond reasonable expenses to prevent undue influence and ensure a child’s welfare is paramount.
- For example: If a couple offers a mother financial compensation to adopt her unborn child, this could be considered illegal baby-selling rather than a lawful adoption process.
How might a court assess a pre-birth consent to adoption in determining its validity?
Courts typically scrutinize pre-birth consents closely to ensure they are informed, voluntary and not the product of coercion. The time of consent, the presence of stressors, and understanding of rights are pertinent. If consent seems rushed or influenced by pressure—financial or psychological—it may not be upheld.
- For example: A birth mother’s consent given under financial duress or without fully understanding her right to withdraw consent post-birth would likely be deemed invalid by a court.
References
Was this case brief helpful?