Raftopol v. Ramey
Supreme Court of Connecticut
12 A.3d 783 (2011)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Domestic partners Anthony Raftopol and Shawn Hargon (plaintiffs) entered into an agreement with Karma Ramey (defendant) in which Ramey agreed to act as a surrogate carrier for the plaintiffs’ child. Raftopol contributed genetic material to eggs provided by a third-party donor, which were subsequently implanted in Ramey. Ramey gave birth to two children. Pursuant to the agreement, Ramey agreed to terminate her parental rights and consent to the adoption of the children by Hargon. Prior to the birth of the children, the plaintiffs filed a petition in trial court seeking a declaratory judgment that that the gestational agreement was valid and that Raftopol and Hargon were the legal parents of the children. Additionally, the plaintiffs requested that the court order the state department of public health (the department) (defendant) to issue a replacement birth certificate reflecting that Raftopol and Hargon were the children’s lawful parents. The department argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to terminate the parental rights of Ramey, her husband, the egg donor, and any other necessary party. The trial court disagreed and held that: (1) the gestational agreement was valid, (2) Raftopol was the biological and legal father of the children, (3) Hargon was also the legal father of the children, and (4) Ramey was not the genetic or legal mother of the children. The trial court ordered the department to issue a replacement birth certificate. The department appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McLachlan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 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.