Make Gestational Carrier Agreements Enforceable
Despite the potential for complications, we favor its adoption. The act provides clear guidance to the public and limits the risk that needy women might be exploited for their reproductive capacity.
March 19, 2018 at 11:24 AM
3 minute read
The New Jersey Legislature is advancing a statute that would enable individuals to enter into enforceable agreements for surrogate parenthood via gestational carriers. The New Jersey Gestational Carrier Agreement Act (S-482, A-1704) awaits only final legislative approval and the signature of Gov. Phil Murphy to become law.
In gestational surrogacy, a woman agrees to be implanted with a fertilized egg that is not hers, and to carry the fetus to term. The fetus is conceived in vitro, using egg and sperm from donors who are unrelated to the woman. The act requires such agreements to be in writing; additionally, the carrier must be over age 21 and have already borne at least one child of her own; her spouse or partner must consent in writing, and the intended parents must provide financial and medical support to the woman throughout her pregnancy and delivery. All parties must also undergo psychological evaluation and be represented by independent counsel. The woman carrying the fetus must surrender custody of the baby to the intended parents immediately upon birth. The act specifies that during the pregnancy, the intended parents must initiate a proceeding for an order of parentage. After the birth, the state will issue a birth certificate listing only the intended parents as the legal parents. Records relating to the agreement will remain confidential, but the child may petition for access when he or she turns 18.
Gestational surrogacy is not a common form of assisted reproduction. According to the Centers for Disease Control, gestational surrogacy represents only 2 percent of all assisted-reproduction arrangements. More common is traditional surrogacy, in which the pregnant woman is the biological mother of the child. The complications inhering in traditional surrogacy are well known from In the Matter of Baby M, 109 N.J. 396 (1988). In that case, the surrogate mother, who had initially agreed to surrender custody to the biological father and his wife, changed her mind after the child's birth. In the ensuing litigation, the Supreme Court held that the agreement between the father and the surrogate mother was unenforceable as against public policy, inasmuch as New Jersey law favors the biological parents having custody of their children. The Baby M case is still good law, and traditional surrogacy agreements are unenforceable in New Jersey.
In contrast, gestational surrogacy arrangements do not present the problem of traditional surrogacy, as there is no genetic connection between the woman and the fetus she carries. Such arrangements are not, however, without emotional or medical risk. A woman going through pregnancy experiences a variety of emotions and physiological changes, the effects of which may pose complications for both her and the intended parents. For example, if the fetus is diagnosed with a deformity or a handicap, the intended parents may pressure the woman to abort the pregnancy; she, in turn, may oppose. In addition, gestational surrogacy makes it possible for someone desiring a child to select egg and sperm donors with particular traits; in other words, the creation of “designer babies.” These and other issues may arise once the act becomes law.
Despite the potential for complications, we favor its adoption. The act provides clear guidance to the public and limits the risk that needy women might be exploited for their reproductive capacity. We commend the Legislature for formulating a legal framework for this cutting-edge reproductive technology.
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 AllABC's $16M Settlement With Trump Sets Bad Precedent in Uncertain Times
8 minute readAs Trafficking, Hate Crimes Rise in NJ, State's Federal Delegation Must Weigh in On New UN Proposal
4 minute readAppellate Court's Decision on Public Employee Pension Eligibility Helps the Judiciary
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1LexisNexis Announces Public Availability of Personalized AI Assistant Protégé
- 2Some Thoughts on What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
- 3Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
- 4The New Global M&A Kings All Have Something in Common
- 5Big Law Aims to Make DEI Less Divisive in Trump's Second Term
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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