Parentage Problem Solving for Families in the Age of Surrogacy
On Feb. 15, 2021, New York's Child-Parent Security Act (CPSA) becomes fully effective, creating a process that legitimizes surrogacy and providing a new basis for determining the parentage of children born by means of assisted reproductive technology and/or surrogacy. Alton L. Abramowitz describes some of the new provisions in this edition of his Divorce Law column.
February 09, 2021 at 12:45 PM
7 minute read
An article in the New York Times written by Maria Cramer and published on Jan. 31, 2021, titled Couple Forced To Adopt Their Own Children After a Surrogate Pregnancy could not have been more provoking, disturbing and timely because it highlights some of the hurdles heretofore faced by married couples (and individuals) in their efforts to add children to their family while utilizing the services of a surrogate mother. The article describes the plight of Jordan and Tammy Myers, a Michigan couple with an eight-year-old child, who now have newborn twins that were delivered by a surrogate. Two Michigan judges denied the Myerses' requests to be declared the legal parents of their twins, despite affidavits from the surrogate and her husband, and from the fertility doctor, all attesting to the fact that the Myerses are the twins' biological parents. "Michigan law does not automatically recognize babies born to surrogates as the legal children of their biological parents." As a result, the Myerses are now engulfed in a formal adoption process, which included fingerprinting and which will also include "home visits by a social worker, personal questions about their own upbringing, their approach to parenting and criminal background checks." In the interim, the surrogate and her husband are listed as the parents on the birth certificates of the twins, and "temporary permission" had to be given by the surrogate in order to enable the Myerses to take the twins to their home from the hospital where they were born.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPreemptive Litigation: A Potential Approach for a Precise Situation
13 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Just Ahead of Oral Argument, Fubo Settles Antitrust Case with Disney, Fox, Warner Bros.
- 2Best Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
- 3FOMO Run Amok? Resolve of Firms Chasing AI Dreams Tested by Sky-High Costs
- 4Sam Butler, Longtime Cravath Presiding Partner, Dies at 94
- 5French Rape Case Highlights Need for Vigilance, Education
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250