P.M. v. T.B.
Iowa Supreme Court
907 N.W.2d 522 (2018)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Iowa spouses the Ms (plaintiffs) wanted a child. Mrs. M was past childbearing age, so the Ms placed an advertisement for a surrogate mother. Another married couple, T.B. and her husband, D.B. (defendants), were struggling to conceive and needed money for fertility treatment. They responded to the Ms’ ad and agreed T.B. would be the Ms’ surrogate. The couples signed a surrogacy agreement under which T.B. agreed to be implanted with and carry embryos created using donor eggs and Mr. M’s sperm. In exchange, the Ms agreed to pay for T.B.’s medical expenses during pregnancy and to pay T.B. up to $13,000 for her own in vitro fertilization cycle upon surrendering the baby to the Ms after birth. Two embryos were successfully implanted, and T.B. became pregnant with twins. The couples’ relationship then deteriorated, resulting in T.B. deciding she would not surrender the babies to the Ms once born. T.B. delivered the twins 13 weeks prematurely. She did not notify the Ms. One twin died eight days later, but the other survived. When the Ms learned about the birth, they sued T.B. and D.B. for custody of the live baby. T.B. contested, arguing that the surrogacy agreement was unenforceable and Iowa law presumed T.B. and D.B. to be the baby’s parents. The trial court found the surrogacy agreement enforceable. The court terminated the presumptive parental rights of T.B. and D.B. and awarded full custody to Mr. M as the child’s genetic and intended father. T.B. appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Waterman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 777,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.