In the Matter of Baby M
Supreme Court of New Jersey
109 N.J. 396, 537 A.2d. 1227 (1988)
- Written by Megan Petersen, JD
Facts
William Sterns (plaintiff) and his wife, Elizabeth, could not have children. The Sternses contacted the Infertility Center of New York (ICNY) to discuss surrogacy. The Sternses and Mary Whitehead (defendant) agreed that Whitehead would be artificially inseminated by Sterns and carry the child. After birth, Whitehead would surrender the child and her parental rights to the Sternses. In exchange, Sterns would pay $10,000 to Whitehead and $7,500 to the ICNY. Sterns and Whitehead signed a surrogacy contract outlining these terms. The ICNY conducted a psychological examination of Whitehead to determine her fitness for surrogacy and noticed some potential issues that could make it difficult for Whitehead to surrender a child. The ICNY did not share these concerns with Sterns or Whitehead. Additionally, Whitehead did not consult legal counsel outside of a conversation with an ICNY lawyer. Finally, Whitehead made no inquiries as to the Sternses’ fitness for parenting. Whitehead became pregnant. Once the child was born, however, Whitehead experienced emotional difficulty surrendering her to the Sternses. Whitehead fled with the child to another state, and the Sternses called the police to forcibly remove the child from Whitehead’s home. Due to these difficulties, Sterns sued Whitehead in New Jersey state court, seeking enforcement of the surrogacy contract. The trial court upheld the contract and awarded full custody to Stern, with the option for Elizabeth Stern to adopt. Whitehead was granted limited visitation rights. Whitehead appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilentz, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.