C.M. v. M.C.

California’s surrogacy statute established a procedure for surrogates and intended parents to contract to a surrogacy arrangement. If the parties complied with the statutory requirements, courts were required to grant the intended parents’ petition to establish their parental rights and to recognize that the surrogate did not have parental rights. C.M., who wished to become a father (the intended father) (plaintiff) and M.C., a surrogate (the surrogate) (defendant) entered such a surrogacy contract. In exchange for the surrogate’s implantation with the intended father’s embryos, the intended father agreed to pay the surrogate for her pain, discomfort, pre-birth support, and living expenses. The surrogate contracted to cooperate with the intended father’s petition to establish his parental rights, agreeing that she was not the mother of the embryos and would not attempt to establish her own parental rights. The contract complied with the surrogacy statute. The implantation was successful, and the surrogate became pregnant with triplets. Pursuant to the contract, the intended father filed a petition for establishment of his parental rights and recognition that the surrogate did not have parental rights. However, the surrogate counterclaimed, asking for recognition as the unborn triplets’ mother and a finding that the surrogacy statute violated her due-process and equal-protection rights and those of the children. The trial court granted the father’s petition, establishing the father as the triplets’ sole legal parent and terminating the surrogate’s parental rights. The surrogate appealed. One of her arguments was that the termination of her parental rights was impermissible because it violated the triplets’ interest in freedom from commodification.