Surrogate Mother Case : Custody Arguments Due in Trial

A Chula Vista couple who arranged for their Mexican cousin to be a surrogate mother for their child on Friday abandoned their court battle to prove that they had a legal contract, setting the stage for arguments over custody of the baby girl.

In a surprise move that wrapped up the first week of the trial to decide the fate of 8-month-old Lydia Michelle Haro, Merle Schneidewind, attorney for Mario and Natty Haro, dropped his effort to show that his clients had a binding handwritten contract with Alejandra Munoz giving them custody in return for a cash payment.

Explaining the major concession, Schneidewind told Superior Court Judge William Pate that the Haros decided to drop the issue of whether the contract was legal because they did not want family members to have to testify for or against them in an attempt to settle the question. Earlier this week, Munoz and the Haros gave conflicting testimony about the contract and other details of the surrogate-mother arrangement.

However, Munoz’s attorney, Harvey Berman, said after Friday’s hearing that he believes that Schneidewind “saw the handwriting on the wall” and decided to drop the contract issue rather than risk seriously undermining the Haros’ credibility before the custody phase of the trial began.

“I think he realized the judge was going to rule there wasn’t a contract . . . and decided to cut his losses,” Berman said. “His clients’ integrity had already been impeached so he had no choice but to capitulate.”

With the elimination of the contractual issue, arguments over custody of the child are scheduled to begin Monday. The custody portion of the case is expected to last about one week.

“We will now look to the child and see what is in her best interest,” Schneidewind told United Press International. “The judge said that would happen even if the contract was valid.”

The Haros, who contend that Munoz willingly agreed to bear the child as a favor, are seeking sole custody. Munoz, a 21-year-old former cleaning woman who claims that she was misled by the Haros and a mutual aunt into serving as a surrogate, is seeking shared custody with the Haros making child support payments.

The case, which could produce the first California court rulings on whether joint custody arrangements are applicable to surrogate births, had its origins in 1985 when a mutual aunt of Munoz and Mrs. Haro suggested that Munoz serve as a surrogate mother for the Haros, who were unable to have children.

Mario Haro, a 33-year-old high school science teacher, and Natty Haro, a 37-year-old bank employee, subsequently arranged to have Munoz and her young daughter brought across the border from a small village outside Mazatlan, Mexico. Munoz moved into the Haros’ home, artificially inseminated herself with Mario Haro’s sperm and gave birth to Lydia Michelle on June 25, 1986.

The contract in question, handwritten in Spanish, had been signed six weeks into Munoz’s pregnancy. In the note--prepared without the battery of lawyers and doctors often involved in surrogate-mother arrangements--the Haros agreed to pay Munoz about $1,500, and she agreed to relinquish all rights to the child.

Schneidewind had argued earlier that the agreement was a “written modification” to an oral contract between Munoz and the Haros. Munoz, though, testified that she signed the paper without knowing what it was, and attorney Berman has implied that the Haros doctored the document after Munoz signed it.

Munoz also contends that the Haros originally told her that her fertilized ovum would be transplanted into Natty Haro’s womb in the early stages of pregnancy, but then reneged on the deal and duped her into signing the statement. The Haros, however, testified that they had never mentioned embryo transplants in their dealings with Munoz, who they claim willingly agreed to bear a child for the couple for $1,500.

About seven months into her pregnancy, Munoz testified, she informed the Haros that she intended to keep the child. However, after giving birth by Caesarean section, Munoz said, she was too weak to fight to keep control of the infant. In addition, Mrs. Haro signed her own name to the child’s birth certificate.

After Berman filed suit last September attempting to regain custody of the child for Munoz, Schneidewind filed a countersuit contending that Munoz had breached a binding contract by trying to get back her daughter.

Pending the outcome of the case, Pate gave temporary custody of the child to the Haros and visitation rights to Munoz three times a week.