## Facts

- California’s gestational surrogacy statutes (Fam. Code, §§ 7960–7962) set requirements for enforceable surrogacy agreements and a procedure for intended parents to obtain a parentage judgment that recognizes their parental rights and denies parental rights to the gestational carrier when the statutory requirements are met.
- C.M. (the intended father) and M.C. (the gestational carrier/surrogate) entered into a detailed written in vitro fertilization surrogacy agreement that, on its face, satisfied the statutory requirements (including execution timing and representation by independent counsel).
- The agreement provided that embryos created using C.M.’s genetic material (and ova from an anonymous donor) would be transferred to M.C., that M.C. would carry any resulting pregnancy, and that any children born would be treated as C.M.’s legal children, with M.C. having no parental rights.
- The embryo transfer was successful, and M.C. became pregnant with triplets.
- Consistent with the agreement and Family Code section 7962, C.M. filed a petition in superior court seeking a judgment establishing him as the children’s legal parent and confirming that M.C. had no parental rights.
- During the pregnancy, M.C. opposed the petition and filed claims seeking recognition as the triplets’ mother, raising constitutional attacks on California’s surrogacy statutes and the enforceability of surrogacy agreements, including due process and equal protection arguments and an argument framed as the children’s interest in freedom from commodification.
- The trial court granted C.M.’s petition, entered judgment declaring C.M. the triplets’ sole legal parent, and ruled that M.C. had no parental rights.
- M.C. appealed from the parentage judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether, where a gestational surrogacy agreement meets the requirements of Family Code sections 7960–7962, the trial court must enter a parentage judgment recognizing the intended parent(s) and denying parental rights to the surrogate.
2. Whether California’s gestational surrogacy statutes and enforcement of the agreement in this case violated due process or equal protection rights asserted by M.C. and/or the unborn children.
3. Whether public-policy objections to compensated surrogacy, including a claimed child interest in freedom from commodification, barred enforcement of the agreement and entry of judgment under section 7962.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- It held that the relevant statutory requirements for an enforceable gestational surrogacy agreement were satisfied, so the trial court properly entered judgment declaring C.M. to be the triplets’ sole legal parent and confirming that M.C. had no parental rights.
- It rejected M.C.’s constitutional challenges to the surrogacy statutory scheme as applied, concluding that her arguments were foreclosed by the Legislature’s enactments and binding California Supreme Court authority addressing gestational surrogacy.
- It also rejected M.C.’s public-policy arguments, including the commodification theory, and declined to invalidate the statutory procedure or the agreement on those grounds.

## Legal Principles

- California Family Code sections 7960–7962 authorize and regulate gestational surrogacy; when the statutory prerequisites are met, courts are directed to enter parentage judgments consistent with the parties’ agreement and intent regarding legal parentage.
- In gestational surrogacy, California law recognizes intent-based parentage principles reflected in controlling precedent (including Johnson v. Calvert), and gestation alone does not establish parental status when a valid surrogacy agreement and statutory procedure govern the arrangement.
- A surrogate who contracts, with independent counsel and required disclosures, to carry a pregnancy for an intended parent and to disclaim parental rights may be found to have no parental rights when the agreement satisfies the statutory framework.
- Broad constitutional and public-policy attacks on compensated gestational surrogacy do not defeat an otherwise valid agreement and statutory parentage judgment where the Legislature has authorized the practice and controlling precedent has upheld intent-based determinations in this setting.
- On appeal, the court’s task focuses on whether the statutory requirements for enforceability and the statutory procedure for entering judgment were met, rather than reweighing policy objections that the Legislature and higher courts have already resolved.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed a parentage judgment entered under California’s gestational surrogacy statutes, holding that the parties’ compliant surrogacy agreement required recognition of the intended father as the triplets’ sole legal parent and denial of parental rights to the surrogate, and rejecting constitutional and public-policy challenges to that result.


C.M. v. M.C., 7 Cal. App. 5th 1188, 213 Cal. Rptr. 3D 351 (2017)