 |
|
|
|
Price
Video
Mass Media
Partners
Contacts
Review
| Surrogacy in different countries | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Surrogacy Massachusetts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Surrogacy Massachusetts
The decision by the Supreme Judicial Court as the Boston Globe proclaimed in its headline "Surrogacy Law Enacted With Protections", it authorized surrogacy to proceed in Massachusetts, rather than illegitimized it. It encouraged the Legislature to enact a statute governing surrogacy, citing approval to the New Hampshire and Virginia statutes, both of which permit surrogacy under certain circumstances. Thus, the court by no means rejected surrogacy as a means for infertile couples to have children, it simply sought to create guidelines under which those arrangements might be given effect.
The decision simply makes clear what every other court who has addressed the traditional surrogacy arrangement has already made clear, (i.e. the Baby M case in New Jersey and the Moschetta case in California), namely that a traditional surrogacy arrangement is unenforceable until the surrogate mother actually signs a surrender form and relinquishes the child to the intended parents. As this can happen in Massachusetts within four (4) days of the birth of the child, there is not a long waiting period after the birth for insecurity.
Nevertheless, many people will get caught up on the court's ruling that the surrogacy arrangement in question was unenforceable, and that women in Massachusetts have four (4) days after the birth of the child in which to decide whether or not to relinquish the child. But this is no different than the law was before the decision came down, nor is it different than the case law in any other state that has not specifically legislated in favor of surrogacy (such as the legislature did in Arkansas.) Thus, there is very little new here.
What is new in this decision is the court's clear distinguishing of surrogacy from private adoptions (which are illegal in Massachusetts). Here is nothing inherently unlawful about traditional surrogacy arrangements, the court boldly held. The court then went on to say that, under the right circumstances, such agreements might be enforceable. Recognizing that most couples would prefer not to wait until four days after the child was born to know if their agreement was enforceable, the court encouraged the legislature to provide a means for judges to authorize a surrogacy agreement to go forward provided certain criteria were met. The criteria the court felt were important included (1) that the surrogate be an adult who had had at least one successful pregnancy, that her husband give his informed consent to the surrogacy agreement in advance, that the mother, her husband and the intended parents be evaluated in advance for the soundness of their judgment and for their capacity to carry out the agreement, and that the intended parents be suitable persons to assume custody of the child and all parties have the advice of counsel. The court added the factor that "the father's wife be incapable of bearing a child without endangering her heath." However, this factor should not be narrowly interpreted. The court readily recognized the acceptability of the use of surrogacy to create non-traditional (i.e. lesbian) families or to create a traditional family where the father's wife is simply unable to carry her egg to term (i.e. gestational surrogacy).
26/03/2012
06/03/2012
20/02/2012
30/01/2012
29/11/2011
23/11/2011
20/10/2011
21/06/2011
17/06/2011
10/06/2011
|
||||||||||
|
