Donnesha, Brady, et al. “A Look at the Legalities Involved with Surrogacy and Surrogacy Contracts.” http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lawonline/journals/spring%201999/law_ online/Surrogacy_Papx.html (April 6, 2006)
In this article a legal history of surrogacy was given, it briefly described cases that involved a surrogate mother. The article first defines the two different types of surrogacy. The first type of surrogacy is gestational surrogacy, which is a women who volunteers to carry a baby to term for a couple and receives a embryo through in vitro-fertilization so that the child is actually not genetically related to the surrogate mother. The second type is surrogate motherhood in this situation the women volunteers to carry a baby to term for a couple but this time the her own egg is used, in this situation the child is genetically related. The article also touching on the moral and ethical issues that surrounded surrogacy.
Paulson, Amanda. “Modern life stretching family law.” http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0810/p 01s02-usju.html (April 6, 2006).
This article discusses the legal problems that have arose from new technology in fertilization. Legal issues involving surrogates, egg donors, sperm donors, and same-sex parenting have some to in question who has parental rights. The article also briefly covers recent cases, it points out that the legal issues of parental rights with in vitro-fertilization is constantly evolving. The article also touches on the issue of the “deatbeat dad” factor, which refers to the fact that courts are quicker to establish fatherhood then they are to establish motherhood when the child has more than one mother.
Stack, Barbara White. “Egg donor enters battle for custody of triplets.” http://www.post-gazette. com/pg/04189/342889.stm (April 6, 2006).
This newspaper article refers to a current custody battle over a set of triplets that involves the surrogate mother, the egg donor, and the intended parents (the male also being the sperm donor). Since the birth the triplets have been taken care by the surrogate mother, Bimber, and her husband. Flynn the intended parent and sperm donor was denied custody of the triplets at the hospital because he could not produce the legal documents that the babies were his. J.R., the egg donor, is also seeking custody of the triplets however, she has filed in Ohio where none of the parties live nor where the triplets where conceived. The ruling as it stands now has given custody to the surrogate mother.
Vorzimer, Andrew and Lori Shafton. “Legal Issues to Consider When Utilizing Egg Donation” http://www.surrogacy.com/legals/article/liegg.html (April 6, 2006).
This article informs people of the important legal steps needed to be taken when involved with egg donation or surrogacy. It emphasizes the importance of an egg donor and surrogacy contract. This document should include relinquishment of parental rights by the egg donor and her spouse the same with the surrogate mother. It also discusses the Sperm Donor Act analogy which some courts have used in their rulings, which states the donor of the sperm that is provided to a licensed physician for the intended in the use of artificial insemination of a women (the sperm is not of her husband’s) he is not considered the father of the child. The article also gives advice on consent issues, medical screening, and psychological screening. Another important issue is the ownership and use of excess eggs is also discussed in the piece because of legal cases that have come about in the past.
Vorzimer, Andrew and Milena O’Hara. “Buzzanca v. Buzzanca: The Ruling and Ramifications.” http://www.surrogacy.com/Articles/news_view.asp?ID =120 (April 6, 2006).
This article discusses the case, Buzzanca v. Buzzanca, which involved a married couple that choose to have a child from surrogate mother using an unknown sperm donor. About one month before the baby was born the couple filed for divorce. Once the baby was born the intended mother claimed the child as hers however, the father claimed he had no legal obligation to the child because he was not genetically related. However, it was ruled that the father was legal responsible because he signed a legal document before the child was born with the intent to be the child’s father. It was ruled that he was required to pay child support for the child, Jaycee.