IN RE BABY M (537 A.

2d 1227 | February 3, 1988)

FACTS:
• William and Elizabeth Stern: met while PhD candidates at the University of
Michigan; eventually got married in July 1974.
• During the course of their marriage, Mrs. Stern learned that she might have
multiple sclerosis, which in some instances renders pregnancy a serious health
risk; the Sterns decide not to have their own children.
• February 6, 1985:
o Mr. Stern executed a surrogate parenting agreement for a fee of $10,000
with a couple, Richard and Mary Beth Whitehead. This contract basically
stipulates that the Whiteheads will have nothing to do with the baby upon
birth (absolute termination of parental ties), and that Mrs. Stern would be
allowed to adopt the child.
• March 27, 1986
o Baby M was born. Her birth certificate indicated her name to be Sara
Elizabeth Whitehead, and her father to be Richard Whitehead.
• Mrs. Whitehead turned her child over to the Sterns at the Whitehead’s home
despite powerful inclinations to the contrary.
• The Sterns were worried about Mrs. Whitehead’s despair over giving up the
baby. She pleaded to have a week with the baby, and that thereafter, she would
surrender her to the Sterns. The Sterns agreed and turned the child over to her.
• 4 months later, Baby M was returned to the Sterns, having been forcibly removed
from the home where she was then living with Mr. and Mrs. Whitehead.
• Due to Mrs. Whitehead’s refusal to relinquish the baby, Mr. Stern filed a
complaint seeking enforcement of the surrogacy contract.
• Trial court awarded custody to Mr. Stern, the natural father, based on the same
kind of evidence and analysis as might be expected had no surrogacy contract
existed.

ISSUE/S:
• WoN the surrogacy contract was valid and enforceable.
HELD:
• NO.
o The Court ruled that the agreement directly conflicts with existing statutes,
and is contrary to the State’s public policy.
§ The achievemnt of adoption through private placement as
stipulated in the contract, although permitted in New Jersey, is very
much disfavored.
§ Another invalid provision in the contract is the agreement that the
natural mother will cooperate with proceedings to terminate her
 parental rights, and the concession that the child’s best interest will
be served by awarding custody to the natural father and his wife.
o The surrogacy contract conflicts with:
§ Laws prohibiting money in connection with adoptions.
§ Laws requiring proof of parental fitness or abandonment before
termination of parental rights is ordered, or an adoption is granted.
§ Laws that make surrender of custody and consent to adoption
revocable in private placement adoptions.
• Since the termination was invalid, the adoption of Baby M by Mrs. Stern could not
be granted.
• However, court also ruled properly that the best interest of the child would be to
award custody to Mr. Stern.
• Mrs. Whitehead, however, was given visitation rights.

NOTES:
• When she reached the age of majority, Baby M eventually terminated Mrs.
Whitehead’s parental authority, and formalized Mrs. Stern’s maternity through
adoption proceedings.