Attorneys Question Surrogate’s Credibility : Trial: She denies that she misled the couple and insisted that she had the right to change her mind about giving up the baby.

Surrogate mother Anna L. Johnson testified Monday that the infertile couple who hired her to bear their baby should not have trusted her to give up the child, but she denied that she misled or lied to them about her intent to keep the infant.

Under four hours of intense questioning, Johnson repeatedly fended off accusations from the baby’s lawyer that she is a liar. She insisted she had the right to change her mind and keep the child she agreed to bear for Mark and Crispina Calvert for $10,000.

Johnson, 29, wrote a letter to the Calverts on July 23 demanding that they pay her the remaining $5,000 or they would “not get the baby.” Questioned by the Calverts’ lawyer, Christian R. Van Deusen, Johnson testified Monday that even if the couple had paid the money by the deadline she set, she would not have agreed to give up the child.

But Johnson denied Van Deusen’s suggestion that she was lying by implicitly promising to surrender the child if the payment was made. She said she simply “changed my mind.”

“Are you saying the Calverts should have been more circumspect about believing what they heard coming from you?” Van Deusen asked.

“I guess,” Johnson answered.

“Weren’t you deceiving the Calverts into believing that if they complied with the letter, you’d turn over the child?” Van Deusen asked.

“If they so chose to believe,” Johnson said.

The proceeding in Orange County Superior Court marks the first time a surrogate mother has sought legal parental status even though she is not genetically related to the child she bore. The Calverts have temporary custody of the baby. Permanent custody will be decided later.

The hearing has increasingly focused on Johnson’s motives for changing her mind about giving up the child and deciding instead to seek custody of the baby boy, who was born Sept. 19. She claims she formed a deep bond with the child, but lawyers for the Calverts and for the infant question whether that is true.

Mark Calvert testified briefly Monday,

saying that Johnson repeatedly indicated that she would give up the child and that she was confident she would form no bond with the baby.

“She represented throughout that she was an incubator and she was carrying our baby for us and had every intention of turning the baby over to us,” Calvert said.

“She said that since she was not genetically related to the child, she’d have no bond to the child or want to keep it,” he said.

Van Deusen also called as a witness Times reporter Catherine Gewertz, who interviewed Johnson in early August. Gewertz confirmed a published remark in which Johnson said she did not feel bonded to the baby because it was not made from her genetic material.

Last week, under examination by Van Deusen, Johnson denied making that statement to The Times.

Johnson attorney Richard C. Gilbert charged that Gewertz was biased against his client and had “grossly misrepresented” her statements, allegedly because Gewertz was not granted an exclusive story. Gilbert sought to have Gewertz’s notes from the August interview introduced into evidence. But a lawyer for The Times objected, citing a state law that protects reporters from having to disclose unpublished information. Judge Richard N. Parslow did not make an immediate decision on the motion.

Some of the sharpest questions about Johnson’s credibility were raised Monday by the infant’s court-appointed lawyer, Harold F. LaFlamme, who closely examined Johnson on dozens of points:

* LaFlamme accused Johnson of withholding critical information from the Calverts--such as her two previous stillbirths and two miscarriages--so she could be certain they would use her as a surrogate. Johnson denied that.

* LaFlamme charged that Johnson engaged in a “pattern of deceit,” a “pattern of manipulation” and “lying to gain what she wanted.” She denied those allegations.

* LaFlamme asked why she had loaned $900 to her roommate in April when she was demanding early payments from the Calverts because she allegedly needed money to pay medical bills. LaFlamme also asked why Johnson’s attorney said on “The Donahue Show” on Sept. 6 that she had no money when she was receiving more than $1,200 a month in disability and child support, and why she said on the same program that she had not taken money from the Calverts when, in reality, she had cashed several of their checks.

Johnson said she “had the money” when she loaned it to her roommate. She said her disability and child support income “did not go far.” And she said that she did not consider herself to have “taken money” by cashing the Calverts’ checks because they were earmarked for pregnancy-related expenses.

Johnson testified that the Calverts made her feel abandoned by failing to visit her when she was hospitalized several times for complications, but she later admitted that on one occasion she did not tell them she had been hospitalized and that on another occasion the couple visited twice and brought her flowers and food and drove her home.

LaFlamme also attacked Johnson’s credibility by focusing on her medical complications. Johnson testified that one of her doctors suggested that she see a psychiatrist because there did not appear to be a physiological basis for her medical complaints.

Johnson also testified that she believed when she signed the surrogation contract that she had the right to change her mind and that the contract was not enforceable.