You are here: / / SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS.
,

SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS.

In a proceeding related to Matter of Frank G… summarized above, the Second Department noted that the surrogacy contract did not deprive the mother of the child (Renee P.-F.) of her parental rights:

Renee P.-F.’s parental rights were not terminated by virtue of her entering into a surrogacy contract. Surrogate parenting contracts have been declared contrary to the public policy, and are void and unenforceable (see Domestic Relations Law § 122). Moreover, Domestic Relations Law § 124(1) expressly states that “the court shall not consider the birth mother’s participation in a surrogate parenting contract as adverse to her parental rights, status, or obligations.” Matter of Giavonna F. P.-G. (Frank G.–Renee P.-F.), 2016 NY Slip Op 05948, 2nd Dept 9-8-16

FAMILY LAW (SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS)/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS)/SURROGACY CONTRACT (FAMILY LAW, SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS)/PARENTAL RIGHTS (SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS)

You might also like
Civil Contempt Does Not Include the Element of Willfulness/Adverse Inference May Be Drawn Re: Assertion of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in Civil Contempt Proceeding
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED FOR THE MOVING DEFENDANT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, GRANTED THE SAME RELIEF TO DEFENDANTS WHO DID NOT SO MOVE (SECOND DEPT).
BURGLARY SECOND IS AN INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNT OF BURGLARY SECOND AS A SEXUALLY MOTIVATED FELONY (SECOND DEPT).
THE ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENT IN CPLR 3215(G)(4) DOES NOT APPLY TO SERVICE UPON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AS OPPOSED TO A CORPORATION (SECOND DEPT).
Court Participation in Testimony Read-Back Is Error
THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF THE CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FALL (INADEQUATE LIGHTING), DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 2ND DEPT.
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTOPPED FROM CLAIMING THE ADDRESS IN THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE WAS NOT HIS DWELLING PLACE; DEFENDANT TOOK AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO MISLEAD THE PARTY ATTEMPTING TO SERVE HIM (SECOND DEPT). ​
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SCHOOL BUS DRIVER AND MONITOR TOOK APPROPRIATE STEPS AFTER THE FIGHT IN WHICH PLAINTIFF STUDENT WAS INJURED BROKE OUT ON THE BUS (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PETITIONER HAS THE RIGHT TO PETITION FOR CUSTODY DESPITE ABSENCE OF BIOLOGICAL... PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGEDLY INCONSISTENT ACCOUNTS OF THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL CREATED...