Giving the Nod to the Calverts in Surrogate Mother Case

Gayle Binion states in his letter of Nov. 6 regarding the surrogate mother case that giving custody of the child to the Calverts (the genetic parents) instead of to Ms. Anna Johnson (the surrogate) violated both state law and the laws of biology.

State law states that the parent-child relationship between a child and the natural mother may be established by proof of her having given birth to the child. It does not state that the relationship is established by such proof. This opens the door to proof to rebut the presumed relationship established by birth alone. The definition of natural parent contains within it the genetic link between the child and the parent (mother or father). To prove parenthood, genetic tests are run on the child and the alleged parent(s). In fact, Ms. Johnson had these tests run in the hope that possibly the child was hers genetically. The tests proved otherwise.

Prior to the advances in technology that permit the successful implantation of a conceptus into the uterus of a stranger, the woman who gave birth to the child was always the genetic, and therefore the natural, mother. Nothing has really changed as far as the basic underlying principle is concerned.

The genetic mother is the natural mother, whether she gave birth to the child or not. Since there was no factual dispute in this case as to the genetic relationships, Judge Richard N. Parslow was correct in his ruling that the natural parents of the child are the Calverts and that they have exclusive custody of their natural child.

Binion says the decision was also faulty because reproduction is not only genetic but biological, and the fetus reflects both genetic and biological factors. The biological factors he cites are the physiological processes during gestation. This is reminiscent of the “nature vs. nurture” argument in psychology. Both are necessary for life. But nurture has nothing to do with natural parenthood. The determination of natural parenthood is based on bloodline, not lifeline, and the decision in this case recognizes that reality.

BERNARD BRONSTEIN, Adjunct Professor of Law and Medicine, Western State University, College of Law, Fullerton