Excerpt From the Court Ruling . . .

Jaycee was born because Luanne and John Buzzanca agreed to have an embryo, genetically unrelated to either of them, implanted in a woman--a surrogate--who would carry and give birth to the child for them. After the fertilization, implantation and pregnancy, Luanne and John split up, and the question of who are Jaycee’s lawful parents came before [a] trial court.

Luanne claimed that she and her erstwhile husband were the lawful parents, but John disclaimed any responsibility, financial or otherwise. The woman who gave birth also appeared in the case to make it clear that she made no claim to the child.

The trial court then reached an extraordinary conclusion: Jaycee had no lawful parents. First, the [surrogate] who gave birth to Jaycee was not the mother [because] the court had--astonishingly--accepted a stipulation that neither she nor her husband were the “biological” parents. Second, Luanne was not the mother . . . because she had neither contributed the egg nor given birth. And John could not be the father, because, not having contributed the sperm, he had no biological relationship with the child.

We disagree. Let us get right to the point: Jaycee never would have been born had not Luanne and John both agreed to have a fertilized egg implanted in a surrogate. . . .

The same rule which makes a husband the lawful father of a child born because of his consent to artificial insemination should be applied here . . . to both husband and wife. Just as a husband is deemed to be the lawful father of a child unrelated to him when his wife gives birth after artificial insemination, so should a husband and wife be deemed the lawful parents of a child after a surrogate bears a biologically unrelated child on their behalf. . . . We therefore must reverse the trial court’s judgment and direct that a new judgment be entered, declaring that both Luanne and John are the lawful parents of Jaycee.