Surrogate Case Draws Fire From Those Sick at Heart, Sick of Suits

Quoting The Times (“Genetic Parents Win Sole Custody in Surrogate Case,” Oct. 23): “The judge said a surrogate who is genetically unrelated to the child she carries does not acquire parental rights by virtue of having given birth to it.”

Is this what Judge Richard N. Parslow Jr. actually said, or is this a reporter’s interpretation of the meaning of the decision?

In either case, something is sadly missing here. I question whether anyone has the qualifications to make the judgment described in that quotation.

I understand that the genetic parents, the Calverts, provided their fertilized egg to Anna Johnson to carry the child and that this was done under an agreement--a legal contract, I believe.

What were the terms of that contract? Was the issue resolved on the basis of those terms? I am sure that legal training includes plenty of contract law. I am also sure that legal training does not include the laws of genetics. And I am very sure that one does not become an authority in such matters after listening to a few minutes of testimony from genetic experts.

I get the impression that nowadays our legal system obligates itself to decide matters beyond its jurisdiction. Aren’t judges appointed to (and lawyers chartered into) our system of law, not to a “legal system” that sees no limit to its jurisdiction, and certainly not to courts of last resort for matters that are simply beyond their competence?

I wish the Calverts and Ms. Johnson peace in the aftermath of their emotional experiences. Now that the agreement for custody is settled, I trust that they will ignore the pontificating statements of the judge, me, and anyone else.

RUSS BEDFORD, Orange