## Facts

- William Stern, whose wife Elizabeth could not safely become pregnant, entered a written surrogate-parenthood contract with Mary Beth Whitehead through a surrogacy arrangement.
- Whitehead agreed to be artificially inseminated with Stern’s sperm, carry the pregnancy to term, surrender the child at birth, and cooperate in terminating her parental rights so Elizabeth could adopt.
- Stern agreed to pay Whitehead $10,000 upon delivery, plus medical and related expenses.
- After giving birth, Whitehead initially surrendered the child to the Sterns but soon sought the child’s return.
- The Sterns permitted contact; Whitehead then refused to return the child and fled with the child to Florida.
- Florida authorities, acting on a New Jersey order under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, took custody and returned the child to New Jersey.
- The Sterns sued to enforce the contract, terminate Whitehead’s parental rights, award custody to Stern, and permit Elizabeth Stern’s adoption; a guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the child’s best interests.

## Issues

1. Whether the surrogate-parenthood contract was valid and enforceable under New Jersey law or void as against public policy (including adoption-related prohibitions on payments).
2. Whether a court could terminate the surrogate/birth mother’s parental rights based primarily on her advance contractual consent and related conduct.
3. How custody should be decided between the genetic father and the birth mother under the best-interests-of-the-child standard.
4. Whether Elizabeth Stern could adopt the child contingent on termination of Whitehead’s parental rights.

## Decision

- The court held the surrogate-parenthood contract valid and enforceable.
- The court rejected challenges that the agreement was illusory or lacked mutuality, finding consideration and informed, voluntary assent.
- The court concluded the payments were compensation for services associated with pregnancy and birth, not an unlawful sale of the child.
- The court terminated Whitehead’s parental rights, relying on her contractual consent and findings tied to the child’s welfare.
- The court awarded sole custody to William Stern based on the child’s best interests.
- The court authorized Elizabeth Stern’s adoption, contingent on termination of Whitehead’s parental rights.

## Legal Principles

- In custody disputes, the court’s parens patriae authority requires placing the child’s welfare and best interests above competing adult claims.
- A surrogacy agreement may be treated as an enforceable contract between competent adults where consideration and mutual obligations exist and consent is found voluntary and informed.
- Payments connected to a surrogacy arrangement may be characterized as compensation for services rather than a prohibited transfer of a child, depending on how the arrangement is framed and evaluated.
- Termination of parental rights and approval of adoption may be linked to best-interests determinations when the court finds that stability and psychological welfare favor the intended custodial home.

## Conclusion

The trial court enforced a compensated surrogacy contract, terminated the birth mother’s parental rights, granted sole custody to the genetic father, and approved the intended mother’s adoption, reasoning that the child’s best interests and the enforceability of the parties’ agreement supported that result.


In re Baby M, 525 A.2d 1128 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1987)