<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16890" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=029145017-31122009><FONT face=Arial>Here's the current state in
NJ - an issue which poskim are wrestling with as well (YUTORAH -R Brander has
some shiurim on this topic)</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=029145017-31122009><FONT face=Arial></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=029145017-31122009>
<DIV class=timestamp>December 31, 2009</DIV>
<DIV class=kicker></DIV>
<H1><NYT_HEADLINE version="1.0" type=" ">New Jersey Judge Calls Surrogate Legal
Mother of Twins </NYT_HEADLINE></H1><NYT_BYLINE version="1.0" type=" ">
<DIV class=byline>By <A title="More Articles by Stephanie Saul"
href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/stephanie_saul/index.html?inline=nyt-per"><FONT
color=#000066>STEPHANIE SAUL</FONT></A></DIV></NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT>
<DIV id=articleBody>
<P>A New Jersey judge has ruled that a gestational surrogate who gave birth to
twin girls is their legal mother, even though she is not genetically related to
them.</P>
<P>The ruling gives the woman, who carried the babies in an arrangement with her
brother and his male spouse, the right to seek primary custody of the children
at a trial in the spring. </P>
<P>The case illustrates the legal complexities of gestational surrogacy, in
which a woman carries unrelated embryos created in a petri dish. A gestational
surrogate in Michigan recently obtained custody of twins she carried, but courts
in several other states have upheld the rights of people who contracted with
gestational surrogates.</P>
<P><SPAN class=029145017-31122009><SNIP></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=029145017-31122009></SPAN>Judge Francis B. Schultz of Superior
Court, who ruled in the case in Hudson County, N.J., relied heavily on the
precedent established by the New Jersey Supreme Court in 1988 in the case of
Baby M. The surrogate in that case, Mary Beth Whitehead, carried her own genetic
child for another couple after artificial insemination with the man’s sperm.
After Ms. Whitehead decided that she wanted to keep the baby, the court ruled
that her maternal rights could not be terminated against her will.</P>
<P>“The surrogacy contract,” the Baby M court found, “is based on principles
that are directly contrary to the objectives of our laws. It guarantees the
separation of a child from its mother; it looks to adoption regardless of
suitability; it totally ignores the child; it takes the child from the mother
regardless of her wishes and maternal fitness.”</P>
<P>Citing that passage, Judge Schultz wrote, “Would it really make any
difference if the word ‘gestational’ was substituted for the word ‘surrogacy’ in
the above quotation? I think not.”</P>
<P> </P>
<P><SPAN class=029145017-31122009><FONT face=Arial>KT<BR>Joel
Rich</FONT></SPAN></P></DIV></SPAN></DIV><br><br><table bgcolor=white style="color:black"><tr><td><br>THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE <br>
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL <br>
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination, <br>
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is <br>
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us <br>
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message. <br>
Thank you.<br>
</td></tr></table></BODY></HTML>