In_The_Matter_Of_Baby_M

In The Matter Of Baby M In the Matter of Baby M After reading the decision In the Matter of Baby M, I learned that contracts of surrogacy are not binding in the state of New Jersey. This case dealt with Mr. Stern and his wife, and Mrs. Whitehead. Mr. and Mrs. Stern were not able to have a child naturally, and entered into what they thought was a surrogacy contract with Mrs. Whitehead in February of 1985. The contract stated that Mrs. Whitehead was to be artificially inseminated by Mr. Stern and would give birth to the baby. It also said that upon the baby’s birth, Mrs. Whitehead was to deliver the child to the Stern’s, and do whatever was necessary to terminate her parental rights, so Mrs. Stern could thereafter adopt the child. They used ICNY, Infertility Center of New York, as the means of getting together to enter into this surrogacy contract. Mrs. Whitehead was to receive $10,000 for what they referred to in the contract as her “services” and not for the adoption. ICNY was also to receive $7,500 for it’s “services”, both amounts of money coming from the Stern’s. The baby was born mrs, whitehead, baby, court, contract, rights, stern’s, melissa, child, surrogacy, stern, supreme, parental, new, mr, jersey, legal, fact, whitehead’s, visitation, state, since, florida, decision, custody, trial, receive, order, case, binding, based, won, upon, sole, services