Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

J.F. v. D.B.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
897 A.2d 1261 (Pa. Super. 2006)


Facts

Unmarried Ohio residents J.F. (plaintiff) and E.D. were in a long-term committed relationship and wanted children, but E.D. was unable to conceive. J.F. entered into a surrogacy agreement with an egg donor, who provided genetic material, and D.B. (defendant), a gestational carrier. The genetic material provided by the egg donor was combined with material provided by J.F. and then implanted in D.B., who carried three embryos to delivery. Upon delivery, D.B. agreed to relinquish custody of the newborns to the intended parents, J.F. and E.D. The triplets were delivered prematurely via caesarean section and placed into a neonatal intensive-care unit (NICU). The intended parents traveled from Ohio to Pennsylvania to see the infants. However, the newborns required more care than originally anticipated. J.F. and E.D. returned to Ohio while the newborns were being treated at the NICU. D.B. did not like the lack of physical visits by J.F. and E.D. and revoked her consent to permit the intended parents access to the triplets, instead taking the triplets home after discharge. All calls from J.F. and E.D. to D.B. went unanswered. J.F. filed a complaint for custody and a motion for emergency special relief against D.B. After a number of hearings, the trial court struck down the surrogacy agreement and granted standing to D.B. in loco parentis and, alternatively, as the triplets’ legal mother. The court issued an order awarding joint legal custody to D.B. and J.F., gave primary physical custody to D.B., and granted J.F. partial custody and visitation rights. J.F. appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (McCaffery, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 177,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.