## Facts

- J.F. and his long-term partner sought to have children through assisted reproduction and entered arrangements through a surrogacy agency.
- J.F.’s sperm and an egg donor’s oocytes were used to create embryos that were implanted in D.B., a married woman who agreed to act as a gestational carrier under a contract contemplating relinquishment of any resulting children to the intended parent(s).
- D.B. delivered triplet boys in Pennsylvania; the infants briefly remained in neonatal care due to prematurity-related issues.
- After birth, D.B. became concerned about the intended parent(s)’ visits and fitness, and the hospital discharged the infants to D.B. and her husband without J.F.’s consent.
- D.B. then kept the children and restricted access; J.F. filed custody and emergency relief actions in Pennsylvania.
- The trial court ruled D.B. had standing to pursue custody (as in loco parentis and alternatively as legal mother), awarded joint legal custody to J.F. and D.B., and granted D.B. primary physical custody with partial custody to J.F. and a support obligation.
- In a companion proceeding initiated by D.B., the trial court terminated the egg donor’s parental rights; J.F. and the egg donor appealed, and the matters were consolidated.

## Issues

1. Whether a gestational carrier had standing to seek custody of children she carried and delivered when her post-birth assumption of parental authority occurred over the biological father’s objection.
2. Whether the gestational carrier’s asserted status (including in loco parentis or legal motherhood) permitted her to litigate custody against the biological father under Pennsylvania standing rules.
3. Whether a gestational carrier who lacks custody standing also lacks standing to petition to terminate the egg donor’s parental rights.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held D.B. lacked standing to seek custody or to challenge J.F.’s custody of the triplets.
- The court rejected in loco parentis standing because D.B.’s assumption of a parental role was not undertaken with the consent or acquiescence of the children’s legal parent and occurred in the face of J.F.’s objection.
- The court also rejected standing based on D.B.’s asserted “legal mother” status in the posture presented.
- Because D.B. lacked standing in the custody matter, she likewise lacked standing to seek termination of the egg donor’s parental rights.
- The court vacated the custody and termination orders and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The court expressly declined to decide the general validity or enforceability of surrogacy contracts, leaving broader policy questions to the legislature.

## Legal Principles

- Standing in child custody disputes is a threshold requirement and is distinct from the merits of any custody determination.
- In loco parentis standing requires assumption of parental status and discharge of parental duties with the consent or acquiescence of the child’s legal parent; unilateral action over a legal parent’s objection does not satisfy this requirement.
- A party’s lack of standing to litigate custody generally precludes that party from invoking judicial power to terminate another person’s parental rights absent an adequate legal relationship to the child.
- Courts may resolve assisted-reproduction disputes on existing standing doctrines without issuing broad rulings on the enforceability of surrogacy agreements.

## Conclusion

The court vacated orders granting the gestational carrier custody standing and primary physical custody and terminating the egg donor’s parental rights, holding that the gestational carrier’s unilateral post-birth conduct over the biological father’s objection did not confer standing to litigate custody or to pursue termination of parental rights.


J.F. v. D.B., 897 A.2d 1261 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006)