## Facts

- P.M. and C.M., a married couple, sought to have a child; P.M. would be the genetic father, and C.M. could not carry a pregnancy.
- P.M. and C.M. entered a gestational surrogacy agreement with T.B. (the gestational carrier) and her husband, D.B.
- Embryos were created via IVF using P.M.’s sperm and an anonymous egg donor; T.B. agreed to gestate and deliver the child to the intended parents.
- The agreement provided for payment of medical expenses and up to $13,000 toward T.B. and D.B.’s own IVF treatment.
- Two embryos were transferred; T.B. became pregnant with twins.
- The parties’ relationship deteriorated during the pregnancy, primarily due to disputes about medical expenses and T.B.’s requests for additional money.
- T.B. decided she would not relinquish the children to P.M. and C.M.
- The twins were born 13 weeks prematurely; one twin died shortly after birth and the other survived. T.B. did not promptly inform P.M. and C.M.
- After learning of the surviving child, P.M. and C.M. sued to enforce the agreement and obtain custody; DNA testing established P.M. as the genetic father, and neither T.B. nor D.B. had a genetic relationship to the child.

## Issues

1. Whether a gestational surrogacy contract is enforceable under Iowa law when sought to be enforced by the intended, genetic father against a gestational carrier and her spouse who are not genetic parents.
2. Whether enforcing such a contract is consistent with Iowa statutes and public policy, including rules governing termination of parental rights and prohibitions on selling or purchasing children.
3. Whether the marital presumption of parentage for a child born to a married woman controls despite contrary DNA evidence and a surrogacy agreement.
4. Whether the district court properly terminated the surrogate couple’s presumptive parental rights and awarded permanent custody to the genetic father.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the district court.
- The court held the gestational surrogacy contract was legally enforceable under Iowa law.
- The court concluded the agreement did not violate Iowa statutes or public policy, including criminal prohibitions related to child-selling, because the payments were for services and pregnancy-related expenses rather than for the child.
- The court held paternity was properly established in P.M. based on undisputed DNA evidence.
- The court treated the marital presumption as rebuttable and found it overcome by the lack of any genetic tie between the child and T.B. or D.B., the surrogacy agreement, and the DNA proof of P.M.’s paternity.
- The court upheld termination of T.B. and D.B.’s presumptive parental rights and affirmed the award of permanent legal and physical custody to P.M.

## Legal Principles

- Gestational surrogacy contracts may be enforceable under Iowa law when consistent with statutory schemes and public policy.
- Iowa’s marital presumption of parentage is rebuttable and can yield to clear genetic evidence and the parties’ reproductive arrangement.
- Compensation in a gestational surrogacy arrangement may be permissible when structured as payment for services and expenses, not as consideration for transferring a child.
- In a dispute involving a non-genetic gestational carrier and an intended genetic parent, genetic parentage and the parties’ preconception intent may strongly support recognition of the genetic parent’s legal status and custody.

## Conclusion

The Iowa Supreme Court enforced a gestational surrogacy agreement, rebutted the marital presumption, upheld termination of the surrogate couple’s presumptive parental rights, and affirmed permanent custody for the intended genetic father, finding the arrangement compatible with Iowa statutes and public policy.


P.M. v. T.B., 907 N.W.2d 522 (Iowa 2018)