In Re TJS
16 A.3d 386
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2011Background
- Plaintiffs T.J.S. and A.L.S. are infertile; A.L.S. cannot carry to term.
- IVF used T.J.S.’s sperm with an anonymous donor egg to create embryos for gestational surrogacy with A.F. as the carrier.
- No genetic connection between child T.D.S. and gestational carrier or A.L.S.; child related to T.J.S. and donor.
- Plaintiffs sought a pre-birth order declaring them parents and preventing A.F. from being listed as mother; 72-hour relinquishment window contemplated.
- Trial court ordered birth certificate listing T.J.S. as father and A.L.S. as mother, conditioned on A.F. surrender of rights after birth.
- State Registrar moved to vacate listing of A.L.S. as mother; court held Parentage Act does not permit A.L.S. to be declared parent without adoption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Parentage Act confer maternity on infertile wives in surrogacy? | A.L.S. seeks maternity under Act §§9:17-41–44 by virtue of marriage and intent. | Act confines maternity to biogestational relations; adoption required due to lack of biological link. | No; maternity not conferred absent biology or gestation; adoption needed. |
| Is Sections 43–44 of the Act constitutionally valid under New Jersey equal protection? | Gender-neutral reading should apply; infertile wife treated worse than infertile husband. | Statutes rationally distinguish based on biological realities and legislative objectives. | Sections 43–44 pass equal protection; classifications have a rational basis. |
| Is pre-birth parentage adjudication permissible and does State Registrar have notice rights here? | Pre-birth order should grant parentage to plaintiffs; registry notice unnecessary if court orders. | Registrar must be noticed and heard to protect birth-record integrity; no explicit statutory authorization here. | Registrar notice and opportunity to respond required; use of pre-birth order not authorized by statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fazilat v. Feldstein, 180 N.J. 74 (2004) (equal protection and paternity objectives in Parentage Act context)
- Baby M. (Sterns v. Hollingsworth), 109 N.J. 396 (1988) (surrogacy, parental rights, and equal protection analysis)
- A.H.W. v. G.H.B., 339 N.J. Super. 495 (2000) (gestational surrogacy, pre-birth ordering considerations)
- In re Baby M., 109 N.J. 396 (1988) (seminal surrogacy decision on parenthood and Adoption vs surrogacy)
- J.B. v. M.B., 170 N.J. 9 (2001) (concurring on parentage standards and related issues)
- In re Robinson, 383 N.J. Super. 165 (2005) (best interests vs parentage; limitations of duty-based approach)
- Lewis v. Harris, 188 N.J. 415 (2006) (constitutional equality principles in NJ context)
- Tomarchio v. Twp. of Greenwich, 75 N.J. 62 (1977) (three-factor equal protection balancing framework)
- State v. Chun, 194 N.J. 54 (2008) (gender distinctions and equal protection considerations)
- Rutgers Council of AAUP Chapters v. Rutgers, The State Univ., 298 N.J. Super. 442 (1997) (economic and educational equal protection considerations)
- In re P.L.2001, Chapter 362, 186 N.J. 368 (2006) (public policy and statutory interpretation in parentage)