1 ‘Mother’ Gets Right to Visit : Custody: The other, who gave birth to the child under contract, is not granted the same right. So goes yet another legal battle arising from a surrogate birth.

Cynthia Moschetta, who helped rear a child born to her estranged husband and a surrogate mother, won extended visitation rights to the 7-month-old girl Friday.

But Orange County Superior Court Judge Nancy Wieben Stock refused to allow visitation rights for the surrogate, who announced that she would seek custody of the baby when she learned that the couple, for whom she bore the child, were divorcing.

The baby’s father, who has temporary custody, argued unsuccessfully that neither woman should be allowed to visit the child until the question of which is the legal mother is settled.

It was the latest twist in a surrogacy case that features three “parents” competing for custody: Robert Moschetta, 35, the baby’s genetic father; surrogate Elvira Jordan, the baby’s natural mother; and Cynthia Moschetta, 51, who is not biologically related to the child but claims an emotional bond.

Legal experts say the Moschetta case, like the Baby M and Johnson vs. Calvert surrogate disputes, may set legal precedent because it too raises thorny legal and philosophical questions: What is a parent? When, if ever, does a person who cares for a child acquire parental rights?

The Moschettas, after nearly 10 years of trying to have a child of their own, agreed to pay Jordan $10,000 to bear Robert Moschetta’s child, according to lawyers and court documents. Shortly before the baby was born, Cynthia Moschetta alleges, Robert Moschetta told her that he wanted a divorce and that he planned to move out and raise the child himself. When Jordan was informed of the impending split, she told the couple that they had breached the surrogate contract and that “she wanted to give the baby to a loving couple,” Cynthia alleges in court papers.

Jordan reportedly said she would raise the child, whom Jordan calls Melissa Jordan and the Moschettas call Marissa Moschetta.

The baby was born May 28, 1990, and, according to Cynthia, the surrogate agreed to hand over the baby if the couple stayed together.

“She agreed to allow that with two reservations, that we must attend marriage counseling for one year and that she must be allowed to visit our home whenever she wanted,” Cynthia Moschetta declared in court papers.

Jordan alleges in court papers that she allowed the baby to stay in Robert Moschetta’s home only “conditionally.”

The Moschettas took the baby home four days after birth, and Cynthia, who is a registered nurse and has a doctorate in education, took a maternity leave to care for the child.

In September, Jordan signed a document relinquishing parental rights to the child to Robert. On Friday, Jordan’s attorney, Jeri R. McKeand of Santa Ana, said it was not clear that Jordan understood what she was signing, and asked Judge Stock to strike the document from the evidence.

In November, Robert moved out of the couple’s Santa Ana home and took the baby with him.

In an initial hearing two weeks ago, Superior Court Judge John C. Woolley awarded Robert temporary custody but gave Cynthia visitation every other weekend. Woolley also denied Jordan visitation rights, although he noted that Jordan had not yet hired a lawyer and said his ruling could be contested later.

On Friday, Judge Stock agreed to let Cynthia see the baby two days a week, saying that more frequent visits would be necessary to maintain a relationship with such a young child. But Stock once again denied Jordan temporary visitation rights.

Robert’s lawyer argued that because “there cannot be two legal mothers” it could harm the baby to become attached to and then be separated from either woman--and thus neither should have visitation rights.

In complex legal maneuvers, the three parties agreed to a March 25 trial to determine the legal mother, an issue they say has never been litigated in California. At the trial, Robert Moschetta is expected to argue that neither woman should be considered a “parent” and that he alone should have parental rights.

Separate hearings will be held to decide which experts should perform psychological evaluations of the child and her attachment to the various “parents” and whether an attorney should be appointed to represent the child’s interests during the proceedings, as was done for the baby in the Anna M. Johnson surrogacy case.

Unlike the Johnson case, in which the battling parents made statements to the media, Jordan and the Moschettas have refused to speak to reporters, and Jordan covered her face in court Friday to thwart photographers.

“She doesn’t want it to turn into a circus like the Johnson case,” her attorney said.