ILNews

Courts study changing surrogacy law

Michael W. Hoskins
April 28, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus


Marriage, divorce, and custody disputes are all significant aspects of family law that warrant a lot of attention from courts and the legal community. But Indiana and other states are currently facing an issue that brings into play an array of family law concerns involving the start of a family, parental responsibilities, reproductive rights, and contract interpretations: surrogacy.

Surrogacy law is at a crossroads because of scientific and technological advances that give people more options to start a family.

For Indiana, the issue surfaced most recently in the case In the Matter of the Paternity and Maternity of Infant R., No. 64A03-0908-JV-367, in which surrogacy law attorney Steven Litz from Monrovia is challenging the constitutionality of Indiana's paternity law because it allows men - but not women - to establish legal parenthood.

Indiana courts have long recognized the importance of family law and held it's in the best interests of a child to have his or her biological parentage established. But no state statute specifically sets out the procedures for establishing maternity. Lawmakers have given state courts little guidance on how to handle gestational surrogacy where an egg from the biological mother is artificially inseminated with the father's sperm and implanted into a surrogate's womb until birth.

State courts in Arizona and Maryland have struck down similar paternity laws in surrogacy situations, while Massachusetts and New York courts have found their statutes inadequate to deal with reproductive technology and ruled that judges should be guided by the principle of equity.

The Hoosier appellate courts are getting the chance to examine their state's statutes with this case involving Infant R., now about 14-months-old.

An embryo of husband T.G. and wife V.G. from northern Indiana was implanted into the wife's sister, D.R., who gave birth to the baby in February 2009. The couple petitioned to have the genetic mother's name on the child's birth certificate and the surrogate sister filed an affidavit supporting their petition. But Porter Circuit Judge Mary Harper and Magistrate Edward Nemeth refused, ruling that state statue doesn't permit a non-birth mother to establish maternity but instead presumes the birth mother is the legal maternal mother.

The case centers on the 1988-passed surrogacy law detailed in Indiana Code 31-8-1-1, which declares surrogate contracts to be against public policy and prohibits a court from considering the contract as a basis for determining custody in the event the surrogate mother refuses to give up the child. It also involves the state's paternity statute passed more than 50 years ago.

Litz was surprised that the trial court had decided the way it did. He said it's the first time he's experienced that in his 25 years of practicing surrogacy law. This case is unique because other jurists statewide haven't found an issue with allowing the agreements to be entered for establishing maternity, he said, and the Attorney General's Office agreed that the lower court's decision should be appealed.

But in its Feb. 17 ruling, a three-judge panel disagreed with the lower court but at the same time held that an affidavit or stipulation between the affected adults wasn't enough. The judges reversed the lower court decision on denying the agreed petition, ruling the biological mother should be allowed to establish maternity. However, the court applied a standard that Litz said differs from standard practice of courts throughout the state.

"While we conclude that the public policy for correctly identifying biological parents is clearly evinced in our paternity statutes, it does not follow that we must embark on a wholesale adoption and application of these statutes in order to provide relief under the narrow set of circumstances we are presented with today," Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote. "Rather, it is for the Legislature to evaluate and deliberate comprehensive proposals for changes to these statutes."

The appellate court decided, however, that these circumstances suggest that equity should provide an avenue for relief. If equity ignores technological realities the law has yet to recognize, a baby born under these circumstances would be denied the opportunity other children have to be linked to those with whom he shares DNA. A surrogate would be denied a remedy available to putative, but not biological fathers, to remove an incorrect designation on a birth certificate and avoidance of legal responsibilities for someone else's child the court continued.

The presumptive relationship that D.R. is the biological mother will stand unless V.G. establishes she is in fact the biological mother, which she must do by clear and convincing evidence, the court determined.

Litz filed a transfer petition with the Indiana Supreme Court in mid-March. Justices haven't yet issued a decision on whether they'll intervene, but Litz hopes the high court will agree in order to correct what he considers incorrect interpretations of the law.

This is the latest of various cases coming up more frequently across the country, confronting the outdated laws that haven't kept up with modern technology and reproductive options. The nonprofit Human Rights Campaign reports that only six states allow individuals and couples to enter into surrogacy contracts, while the District of Columbia and 11 states prohibit these agreements in all or some instances. The remaining 34 states have mixed or unclear laws with court rulings throwing some of those states into more uncertainty.

Some Indiana appellate cases have surfaced in more recent years on the issue, but Litz said it continues to cause issues because the paternity and surrogacy statutes haven't been revised.

A mom has the same rights as a dad, Litz contends.

"There's a reason it hasn't come up on appeal before," he said. "This is so straightforward and basic common sense applies."

Though he's not a family law focused attorney, Litz imagines it does have implications on more general family law where courts must regularly look at maternity and paternity issues in making their decisions.

Family law attorneys throughout the state, and even those watching the case nationally, see this as an important appeal with broader implications.

"The case is a giant step forward for parentage rights and surrogacy in Indiana," said Carmel family law attorney Michele Jackson, with Jocham Harden Dimick Jackson. "The case clearly identifies the rights of biological mothers that use a gestational surrogate to establish their maternity in a child. This is a much efficient and legally appropriate means to establishment of parental rights for mothers, and it's also consistent with a father's rights in establishing paternity. The legislature should look at revising the laws associated with surrogacy."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT