Alabama Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Alabama state law, but it appears to be permitted.
Summary: Alabama law does not directly address surrogacy, but at least one court has acknowledged the parental rights of non-biological participants in a surrogacy arrangement.
Detail: There is no statutory provision in Alabama law specifically addressing the validity of surrogacy arrangements. However, statutes dealing with placing children for adoption and “baby-buying” specifically indicate that they do not apply to surrogate motherhood. The case law has not specifically dealt with the validity of surrogacy agreements. It would seem, however, that courts will consider a participant in a surrogacy agreement with no biological relationship to the child as a parent in contemplating the best interests of the child. One 1996 case arose in the context of a divorce proceeding between a husband and wife who had been part of a traditional surrogacy (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg). The trial court awarded custody to the wife even though she was biologically unrelated to the child. The husband challenged the decision on the ground that he was the child's only biological parent. The court, however, rejected his request and permitted the child to remain with the wife on the basis of the child’s best interest. Although the validity of the surrogacy contract was not addressed, the court did consider the non-biological mother a legal parent.
Alaska Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Alaska state law.
Summary: The legal status of surrogacy agreements in Alaska is unclear. State law is silent regarding surrogacy and only one reported case of limited importance has touched on the issue.
Detail: The only case dealing with surrogacy in the Alaska courts appears to treat surrogacy as a type of adoption. In one 1989 custody case, the plaintiff was a Chickasaw woman who orally agreed to be inseminated by sperm from her sister’s husband to bear a child for them and then signed legal adoption papers upon relinquishing custody. She sought to have the adoption invalidated on the basis that it had not been carried out in accordance with a relevant federal statute (related to Indian governance). The Supreme Court of Alaska rejected her petition, finding that the state adoption law’s one-year statute of limitations had passed.
Arizona Surrogacy Law
Arizona law is unclear on the issue of surrogacy agreements.
Summary: The legal status of surrogacy agreements in Arizona is unclear. While Arizona law prohibits both traditional (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) and gestational (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) surrogacy agreements, part of that statute has been ruled unconstitutional by an appellate court.
Detail: Arizona statute forbids “surrogate parent contracts.” However, should a surrogacy occur, the law states that the surrogate is the legal mother of the child she carries and, if she is married, there is a rebuttable presumption that her husband is the child’s father. The automatic determination of surrogate as legal mother was ruled unconstitutional by an Arizona appeals court. The case law calls into question the validity of the prohibition of surrogacy arrangements. However, because the appellate court opinion may only have struck down one provision of the surrogacy law, and because the Arizona Supreme Court chose not to review the case, the precise scope of the prohibition is unclear. In one case in 1994, a husband and wife entered into a gestational surrogacy agreement. Eggs from the wife were removed, fertilized with the husband’s sperm and implanted in the gestational surrogate, who became pregnant with triplets. During the course of the surrogate’s pregnancy, the wife filed for divorce and sought custody of the unborn children. The husband argued that he was the biological father of the children and, pursuant to statute, the surrogate was the biological mother, leaving the wife no standing to seek custody. The trial court found the section of statutory prohibition on surrogacy agreements which automatically conferred status as legal mother to the surrogate unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals, Division One upheld the trial court’s conclusion, finding that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by granting the intended father an opportunity to establish paternity but denying the same chance to the intended mother. Thus, at least in the counties within the jurisdiction of Appellate Division One (Apache, Coconino, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Yavapai and Yuma) a purported mother is entitled to rebut the presumption that the surrogate is the legal mother of the child born of the surrogacy arrangement.
Arkansas Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Arkansas state law, but it appears to be permitted.
Summary: Arkansas law provides for surrogacy contracts, but it is unclear how courts may apply the law to surrogacy situations involving gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals and couples.
Detail: State law generally holds surrogacy contracts valid and enforceable. It also has clear guidelines that specify the legal parents in several different surrogacy scenarios. Specifically, it states (1) if the intended father is the sperm donor, and he is married to the intended mother, then they are both considered the legal parents; (2) if the intended father is the sperm donor and he is unmarried, then he is the sole parent; and (3) if an anonymous donor inseminated the traditional surrogate, then the intended mother is the legal parent. Nevertheless, it is unclear how courts would apply these particular provisions to a gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender individual or couple, especially in light of the ban on GLBT foster parents and the use of “moral character” laws to deny GLBT parents custody of their children. Case law does not specifically address surrogacy by same-sex couples, but recent cases do show a broad support for surrogacy agreements in Arkansas. In one 1998 case, a heterosexual couple who had a child though a surrogate mother in California went to Arkansas for the required 30 days to legally adopt the child. This action circumvented the mandated six-month residency requirement under California law. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that this was in agreement with Arkansas law and was valid. In one case in 1993, a surrogate mother decided that she wished to keep the twins she was carrying for an Arkansas couple. Because she lived in Michigan, where surrogacy is illegal, a court granted her petition to revoke the surrogacy contract. However, the court granted custody to the intended father in Arkansas, allowing her visitation rights. After the surrogate failed to contact the children for one year, the wife of the intended father moved to adopt them in Arkansas. The Arkansas Supreme Court granted the petition to adopt, finding it in the best interest of the child. While the case was decided on neutral custody law, it does demonstrate the degree to which Arkansas courts are willing to assert their jurisdiction to protect surrogacy agreements.
California Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in California state law, but it appears to be permitted.
Summary: While California has no law regarding surrogacy, courts have consistently upheld both traditional (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) and gestational (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) surrogacy arrangements.
Detail: There is no provision in California law on the subject of surrogacy. Courts have looked to the Uniform Parentage Act to interpret several cases concerning surrogacy arrangements. California courts have consistently upheld the intended parents’ rights and obligations to their parenthood, whether through a traditional or gestational surrogacy. However some case law indicates that for a woman to even be considered in a parentage dispute, she may have to have either a genetic or gestational relationship to the child. The most recent California surrogacy case, in 2003, has numerous complications that make it irrelevant to individuals seeking guidance in surrogacy agreements (the dispute concerned a fertility clinic’s negligence). However, the court’s language seems to reinforce the Moschetta case over the Buzzanca case in its rigid application of the California Family Code’s genetic or gestational parentage requirement. In one 2000 case, the Court of Appeal held that the “intended parents” reasoning from prior cases applied in the context of a different-sex domestic partnership. The Court upheld the male partner’s ability to sue for paternal rights under an artificial insemination agreement with his female partner. The insemination procedure used an anonymous donor and thus the male partner had no genetic relation to the child. One case in 1998 addressed the issue of surrogacy agreements in which the surrogate mother gestates her own ovum fertilized by sperm from an anonymous donor. Neither of the intended parents had a genetic link to the child. The intended/contracting mother sought to be declared the legal mother of the child, and the intended/contracting father sought to be declared unrelated to it (the surrogate mother was not involved). The court found that, in light of the lack of state law on point and of the state interest in establishing parentage, it should view both parents’ rights and responsibilities under the most closely related state statute, which it determined to be the law governing infertile fathers consenting to their wives’ artificial insemination by an anonymous donor. That statute (Family Code § 7613) says that if a man enters into such an agreement, he is the legal father, despite the lack of genetic relation. Analogously, the court held that when a married couple uses a non-genetically related embryo and sperm implanted into a surrogate, intending to procreate, they are the lawful parents of the child. In one 1996 divorce case, the husband disputed the family court’s jurisdiction to award temporary support because the child was the product of gestational surrogacy and was not genetically related to him or his wife. (In this case, an anonymous donor egg and sperm were implanted in the womb of a gestational surrogate, with the intent that the child of the surrogacy be that of the husband and wife.) The husband had signed a surrogacy agreement which named him as the intended father. The Court held that the father’s signing of the surrogacy agreement was enough to grant jurisdiction to the family court to order temporary support while parenthood is determined. In one case in 1994, the court refused to recognize a surrogacy agreement from which the surrogate mother wished to withdraw because of the intended parents’ marital instability. The surrogacy agreement could not be considered a valid adoption because it was not consecrated in the presence of a social worker as required by California law. Furthermore, enforcing it as a surrogacy agreement would run counter to established law that the “intended parent” rule only comes into play to “break the tie” between two women, each of whom has either donated the ovum or carried the child. In this case, the intended mother had done neither, and therefore had no legal claim to the child. It is unclear why the court did not look to the donor insemination statute, as it did in a similar case. Although this appeals court chastised the trial court for deciding against the father because it was displeased with his behavior, it appears that the appeal was decided equally on situational particulars (i.e. the surrogate’s desire to withdraw from the contract). The California Supreme Court held in 1993 that, in the absence of explicit guidance from the legislature on surrogacy, the judiciary should do its best to apply existing family law. That law asserts a “compelling state interest in establishing paternity for all children,” but was promulgated before the possibility of gestational surrogacy and therefore seems to establish the possibility of double maternity. More specifically, Family Code § 7610 says that “the…relationship… [b]etween a child and the natural mother…may be established by proof of her having given birth to the child.” This case establishes a rule for “tie-breaking” in this situation, which comes down on the side of surrogacy: the woman who intended to be the mother at the time of the surrogacy agreement should be the one granted custody.
Colorado Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Colorado state law.
Summary: There are no provisions in Colorado law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.
Connecticut Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Connecticut state law, but it appears to be permitted.
Summary: While Connecticut law is silent with regard to surrogacy agreements, courts have addressed cases involving such agreements and upheld their terms.
Detail: No Connecticut appellate court has explicitly indicated that surrogacy contracts are valid, but cases involving such agreements have been adjudicated and parenting arrangements contemplated by those agreements have been upheld. Additionally, a state superior court has upheld a surrogacy agreement.
The Connecticut Supreme Court, in Doe v. Doe, decided a custody dispute in 1998 between a husband and wife over a child born to a surrogate mother through a traditional surrogacy agreement (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg). Based on a state statutory presumption that it is in the best interests of the child to be in the custody of a biological parent, the Court held that even though the wife was not biologically related to the child, her role in raising the child was enough to overcome the presumption. However, the Court explicitly stated that it was not addressing “whether, or to what extent a surrogate contract, by which the surrogate obligates herself to surrender the child to the child’s father and his spouse, is enforceable.” The Connecticut Supreme Court found in the 1998 case of Doe v. Roe, that a trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to approve an adoption agreement that includes a surrogate mother’s consent to termination of parental rights. The surrogate mother had argued that the contract was void because it was against public policy. Nevertheless, the Court explicitly stated that it was not deciding the validity of surrogacy contracts.
In a 2002 case, Vogel v. McBride, a gay male couple had contracted with a surrogate to deliver an embryo developed from an egg fertilized by one of the men’s sperm. The superior court ordered the hospital to place the names of both men on the birth certificate. The court went on to state, “The egg donor agreement and the gestational carrier agreement [were] valid, enforceable, irrevocable and of full legal effect” under the laws of Connecticut.
Delaware Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Delaware state law, but it appears to be prohibited.
Summary: While Delaware law does not address surrogacy agreements, at least one court has ruled those agreements are against the public policy of the state.
Detail: While the Delaware Supreme Court has not ruled on the legality or enforceability of surrogacy contracts, a lower court held that a “contractual agreement to terminate parental rights … is against the public policy of this [s]tate and may not be enforced by the [c]ourt.” One 1988 case did not involve a surrogacy agreement, but rather concerned an adoptive father who sought to terminate all parental rights over his wife’s biological son through a “Property Division Agreement” after a divorce. The court noted that the Delaware Legislature had not “provide[d] for termination of parental rights by contractual agreement of the parents,” and analogized the case to the well-publicized Baby M surrogacy case in New Jersey. It held that “the receipt of money in connection with an adoption is barred by Delaware law,” and termination of parental rights through contractual agreement is forbidden.
District of Columbia Surrogacy Law
District of Columbia law prohibits surrogacy agreements.
Summary: District of Columbia law prohibits surrogacy agreements.
Detail: Under D.C. law, both traditional (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) and gestational (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) surrogacy agreements are prohibited and unenforceable. Violation of the statute is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000, as much as one year in jail, or both.
Florida Surrogacy Law
Florida law permits surrogacy agreements for married couples only.
Summary: Florida law explicitly allows both gestational (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) and traditional (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) surrogacy agreements, but neither is available to unmarried same-sex couples.
Detail: The gestational surrogacy statutes impose strict requirements on the contracts, among them limiting involvement to "couple[s that] are legally married and are both 18 years of age or older." The law governing traditional surrogacy arrangements, referred to as preplanned adoption agreements, connects those contracts to state adoption law. Florida law explicitly prohibits “homosexuals” from adopting. This law was upheld by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. In one case in 2000, the Florida Court of Appeals noted that the right to enter into surrogate-parenting agreements is reserved for married couples only and is one of the many rights not given to domestic partners. While the ruling concerned only the Broward County Domestic Partnership Act, Florida courts would likely interpret other county domestic partnership laws in a similar way.
Georgia Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Georgia state law.
Summary: There are no provisions in Georgia law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.
Hawaii Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Hawaii state law.
Summary: There are no provisions in Hawaii law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.
Idaho Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Idaho state law, but it appears to be permitted.
Summary: There are no provisions in Hawaii law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.
Illinois Surrogacy Law
Illinois law permits surrogacy agreements.
Summary: Illinois law provides for gestational surrogacy (where the surrogate mother is not biologically related to the child she is carrying), but does not address traditional surrogacy (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg).
Detail: According to Illinois law, a parent and child relationship may be established voluntarily by consent of the parties when: (1) the surrogate mother certifies she is not the biological mother; (2) the husband of the surrogate mother certifies he is not the biological father; (3) the biological mother certifies she donated the egg; (4) the biological father certifies he donated the sperm; and (5) a licensed physician certifies in writing that all of the above is true.
Indiana Surrogacy Law
Indiana law prohibits surrogacy agreements.
Summary: Indiana law declares surrogacy contracts unenforceable as against public policy.
Detail: State law declares surrogacy contracts "void and unenforceable.” Specifically, the law lists several broad contractual terms that, if any is included, void a surrogacy agreement. Such forbidden terms include requiring the surrogate to provide a gamete (a mature sexual reproductive cell) to conceive a child, become pregnant herself or waive her parental rights or duties — provisions typically at the heart of any meaningful traditional (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) or gestational (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) surrogacy agreement.
Iowa Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Iowa state law.
Summary: Iowa has no laws that specifically address the enforceability of surrogacy contracts. The state law prohibiting the purchase or sale of an individual specifically states that it does not apply to surrogate mother arrangements.
Kansas Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Kansas state law, but it appears to be prohibited.
Summary: Kansas has no laws regarding surrogacy, but two attorney general opinions indicate that surrogate parenting agreements are unenforceable in the state.
Detail: One opinion of the state attorney general in 1996 addressed whether a surrogate fee would be considered a professional service governed under the provision of state law which addresses fees in adoption proceedings. The statute permits reasonable fees for “legal and other professional services rendered in connection with the placement or adoption.” The opinion stated that surrogate motherhood does not fit into the definition of “professional service.” Though this opinion indicates that a contract providing a fee for bearing a child for another may be unenforceable, it noted that it is permissible to provide reasonable living expenses for the mother during pregnancy. Another opinion in 1982 stated that a surrogate parent contract would be void as against public policy. The attorney general noted that the “commercialization of motherhood” had not been legitimated by the Kansas legislature, and that these contracts would be unenforceable public policy until they receive legislative approval.
Kentucky Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Kentucky state law, but it appears to be permitted.
Summary: There is no statutory provision in Kentucky directly addressing the validity of surrogacy agreements, but an attorney general opinion and case law indicate uncompensated agreements may be permissible. In addition, anecdotal evidence indicates that some same-sex couples have successfully parented through surrogacy arrangements.
Detail: There is no provision in Kentucky law on the subject of surrogacy. An attorney general opinion cautions against, at least, compensated agreements. In 1980, the attorney general concluded that “contracts involving surrogate parenthood are illegal and unenforceable in the Commonwealth.” He based his opinion on the existence of statutory provisions barring the sale of children and requiring voluntary consent for adoption, as well as “strong public policy against the buying and selling of children.” Case law indicates approval for uncompensated surrogacy agreements, but it is unclear how precisely a court would evaluate any surrogacy contract where money is involved. In one 1986 case, the Kentucky attorney general sought to revoke the corporate charter of an agency that arranged surrogacy contracts. The attorney general argued that surrogacy contracts arranged by the company violated Kentucky statutes that barred the sale of a child for purposes of adoption and that invalidated a mother’s consent to adoption prior to the birth of a child. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court held that fundamental differences between traditional surrogacy contracts (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) and the practices that were the focus of the baby-selling laws took surrogacy contracts outside the scope of those laws. The Court reasoned that surrogacy arrangements are made prior to the conception of the child; the prospective birth mother is thus not concerned about the results of an unwanted pregnancy or the financial burden of raising a child, but with assisting an infertile couple. Baby-selling statutes thus differentiated, the court found that it was not up to the courts to "cut off [procreative] solutions offered by science." The implication is that the courts would uphold an uncompensated surrogacy agreement, however no such case has arisen before the courts.
Louisiana Surrogacy Law
Louisiana law prohibits surrogacy agreements.
Summary: Louisiana law holds any traditional surrogacy contract (in which the surrogate mother is the biological contributor of the egg) void and unenforceable, but does not address uncompensated agreements or gestational surrogacy (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) arrangements.
Detail: Louisiana law finds traditional surrogacy agreements "contrary to public policy" and thus “absolutely null.”
Maine Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Maine state law.
Summary: There are no provisions in Maine law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.
Maryland Surrogacy Law
Maryland state law is unclear on surrogacy.
Summary: The enforceability of surrogacy contracts in Maryland is unclear. While Maryland does not have a specific law that addresses surrogacy agreements, related laws may hold compensated agreements unenforceable.
Detail: Maryland law bans payment for adoption services and prohibits the sale or purchase of minors and punishes this act by a fine and/or jail time. The question as to whether or not these laws apply to surrogacy agreements is widely contested among politicians and legal academics in the state. An opinion of the attorney general indicates disapproval of compensated surrogacy agreements. In an attempt to settle the issue, the Legislature has unsuccessfully tried for the past several years to pass bills regarding surrogacy. One 2000 state attorney general opinion indicates that surrogacy contracts involving the payment of a fee to the birth mother are generally illegal and unenforceable based on existing state law. This suggests that the state would not challenge an uncompensated surrogacy contract. The opinion also states that the payment of a surrogacy fee could not by itself bar approval of an adoption petition and the decision to grant an adoption decision must turn on the best interests of the child.
Massachusetts Surrogacy Law
Massachusetts law permits surrogacy agreements.
Summary: Massachusetts is generally favorable to surrogacy agreements.
Detail: State courts have generally treated surrogacy contracts favorably. Massachusetts treats traditional surrogacy agreements, in which a surrogate mother is artificially inseminated, differently from gestational surrogacy, in which she has no genetic relationship to the child but carries an egg from the intended mother that was fertilized by the intended father. In one case in 2001, the Supreme Judicial Court granted a joint request from a paid gestational mother, a genetic mother, and a genetic father to have the genetic parents listed as the parents on the baby’s birth certificate. While this is further indication of the judiciary’s openness to surrogacy agreements, the Court did not give a ringing endorsement of the enterprise. The Court emphasized that current state law did not address gestational surrogacy agreements, and set forth criteria under which lower courts may review requests for atypical birth-certificate assignations in surrogacy cases. Those criteria are: (a) the plaintiffs are the sole genetic sources; (b) the gestational carrier agrees with the orders sought; (c) no one, including the hospital, has contested the complaint or petition; and (d) by filing the complaint and stipulation for judgment, the plaintiffs agree that they have waived any contradictory provisions in the contract. The Court also noted that a factor indicating positive disposition in these cases is that the gestational mother is related to one of the genetic parents. In one 1998 case, a surrogate mother decided in the sixth month of her pregnancy to keep the child. The court found that two elements must exist to validate a surrogacy agreement: (1) the surrogate mother's consent to the surrogacy must last until four days after the birth and (2) the surrogate mother must receive no compensation. Other conditions might be important in deciding the enforceability of a surrogacy agreement, among them (a) that the surrogate mother's husband give his informed consent to the agreement in advance; (b) that the surrogate mother is an adult and has had at least one successful pregnancy; (c) that the surrogate mother, her husband, and the intended parents have been evaluated for the soundness of their judgment and for their capacity to carry out the agreement; (d) the intended mother be incapable of bearing a child without endangering her health; (e) the intended parents be suitable persons to assume custody of the child; and (f) all parties have the advice of counsel. The Court does emphasize that no agreement is per se valid: “the mother and father may not … make a binding best-interests-of-the-child determination by private agreement. Any custody agreement is subject to a judicial determination of custody based on the best interests of the child.” While all of the other conditions listed above need not exist to validate the surrogacy, it is not entirely clear how a judge would apply them to a gay male couple as intended parents. Because the best of interests of the child is the final determination, however, a judge could certainly find such a couple to be the best environment for the child of the surrogacy.
Michigan Surrogacy Law
Michigan law prohibits compensated surrogacy agreements. Also the contracts are void and unenforceable.
Summary: Michigan law strongly prohibits surrogacy agreements.
Detail: Michigan has one of the strictest laws prohibiting surrogacy contracts, not only holding them unenforceable, but also imposing fines and jail time on anyone who enters into such a contract (up to five years and $50,000 for some). Case law has upheld the validity of this law. In one case in 1992, several would-be participants in surrogacy arrangements challenged the law, arguing that the state had no compelling interest in prohibiting surrogacy. The court disagreed and found three compelling interests: preventing children from becoming commodities, serving the best interests of children and preventing the exploitation of women. Further clarifying the surrogacy statute, the court noted that any agreement involving conception and relinquishment of parental rights by the surrogate is void. In one 1981 case, individuals involved in compensated surrogacy agreements challenged the constitutionality of Michigan statutes barring the exchange of money or other consideration in connection with adoption and related proceedings. In a very short opinion, the Court concluded that state regulation of adoption in this manner does not infringe individuals’ federal constitutional due process right to procreation.
Minnesota Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Minnesota state law.
Summary: There is no provision in Minnesota law on the subject of surrogacy. While the state legislature has considered surrogacy bills, it has yet to pass one.
Mississippi Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Mississippi state law.
Summary: There are no provisions in Mississippi law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.
Missouri Surrogacy Law
Missouri state law is unclear on surrogacy.
Summary: The legal status of surrogacy agreements in Missouri is unclear.
Detail: Missouri has no laws directly regarding surrogacy. However, the crime of “trafficking in children” (a felony) includes payment for “delivery or offer of delivery of a child … for purposes of adoption, or for the execution of consent to adopt or waiver of consent to future adoption or consent to termination of parental rights.” A compensated surrogacy agreement might run afoul of this law. For a theory on the legitimacy of gestational surrogacy agreements (in which the surrogate mother is not the biological contributor of the egg) under Missouri law, see Yvonne M. Warlen, Note, The Renting of the Womb: An Analysis of Gestational Surrogacy Contracts Under Missouri Contract Law, 62 UMKC L. Rev. 583 (1994).
Montana Surrogacy Law
There is no provision on surrogacy in Montana state law.
Summary: There are no provisions in Montana law or reported or published cases dealing with the issue of surrogacy.