Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries
Copyright © 2000-2008, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. All rights reserved.
Conception and
Birth in Connecticut
A Guide to Resources in the Law Library
Sections:
Table 1 Abortion law in Connecticut
Treated Elsewhere: THIRD PARTY VISITATION
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic sources relating to artificial insemination with the semen of a donor (A.I.D.) including status of child born and the rights of the donor of the sperm in Connecticut.
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
DEFINITIONS: |
· A. I. H. (homologous artificial insemination) is insemination of a married woman with semen of her husband. · A. I. D. (heterologous artificial insemination) is insemination of a married woman with semen of a donor other than her husband · Child of the marriage: "Although the statutes have never explicitly defined the contours of the concept of a 'child of the marriage,' our cases have interpreted that concept in a consistent manner, both before and after the historic 1973 revision. A review of that case law, read in connection with certain other statutory developments, leads us to conclude that the meaning of that concept, in the context of a marital dissolution case, is limited to [includes] . . . a child born to the wife and conceived through artificial insemination by a donor pursuant to §§ 45a-771 through 45a-779." Doe v. Doe, 244 Conn. 403, 435, 710 A.2d 1297 (1998) · ARTs = Assisted Reproductive Technology
|
|
STATUTES: |
· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) Chapter 802a. Wills: execution and construction § 45a-257b. Failure of testator to provide for children born or adopted after execution of will. Determination of share of estate. Chapter 803a Children Conceived Through Artificial Insemination § 45a-771. Child born as a result of artificial insemination legitimate § 45a-772. A.I.D. Who may perform. Consent required §4 5a-773. Request and consent to be filed in Probate Court. Confidentiality § 45a-774. Status of child born as result of A.I.D. § 45a-775. No rights in donor of sperm or eggs § 45a-776. Status of child determined by jurisdiction of birth § 45a-777. Inheritance by child conceived as a result of A.I.D. § 5a-778. Words of inheritance to apply to child conceived through A.I.D. § 45a-779. Status of child conceived through A.I.D., born prior to October 1, 1975
|
|
LEGISLATION REPORTS: |
· “Insurance coverage for infertility treatment,” Janet L. Kaminski, Connecticut General Assembly. Office of Legislative Research Report 2005-R-0236 (March 1, 2005). “You asked for infertility treatment coverage requirements in those states [including Connecticut] that mandate coverage.”
· Lawrence K. Furbish, UNIFORM STATUS OF CHILDREN OF ASSISTED CONCEPTION LAW AND CONNECTICUT LAW, Connecticut General Assembly. Office of Legislative Research Report 99-R-0982 (October 1, 1999). “ . . . the only comparable provisions in Connecticut are our artificial insemination statutes (CGS § 54a-771 through 779). But these are more restrictive than the model law. Our statute covers children conceived through the use of ‘heterologous artificial insemination,’ which is artificial insemination with semen from a man who is not the woman's husband. Our law establishes how children born through the use of this procedure are to be deemed legitimate and the process that must be followed by the parents, physician, and probate court.”
· Lawrence K. Furbish , CUSTODY, SURROGATE BIRTH, AND ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION, Connecticut General Assembly. Office of Legislative Research Report 98-R-0032 (February 3, 1998). · Jerome Harleston, ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION AND INHERITANCE, Connecticut General Assembly. Office of Legislative Research Report 1995-R-1099 (October 2, 1995). · 1975 Conn. Acts 233 (Reg. Sess.). (Substitute H.B. 5147). An act concerning the status of children conceived through artificial insemination.
|
|
FORMS: |
· 13B American Jurisprudence Legal Forms 2d (2002 rev.). Chapter 191. Parent and child § 191:101. Agreement for artificial insemination—Between husband, wife, and donor—Identity of donor known § 191:102. Agreement for artificial insemination—Between recipient and donor—Identity of donor known § 191:103. Agreement for artificial insemination—By recipient and physician—Identity of donor unknown § 191:104. Agreement for artificial insemination—By donor and physician or intermediary—Identity of recipient unknown · Handling Pregnancy & Birth Cases (1983) § 4.4. Artificial Insemination Consent Form · 6 Arnold H. Rutkin, Family Law and Practice (2007) § 63.09[2][a]. FORM: Consent of Husband to Artificial Insemination of Wife
|
|
CASES: |
· In re The Adoption Of Baby Z, 247 Conn. 474, 477, 724 A.2d 1035 (1999). · “These two appeals arise from an adoption application filed in the Probate Court by the petitioners, Anne and Malinda (hereinafter plaintiffs). The following facts and procedural history are undisputed. The plaintiffs, two unrelated women, have lived together for more than ten years. In re Baby Z., 45 Conn. Sup. 33, 34, 699 A.2d 1065 (1996). Together, they planned for the birth of Baby Z., who was conceived by artificial insemination and born to Anne on May 10, 1992. Id. Since that time, the plaintiffs have shared parental responsibilities for Baby Z. Id.” · Laspina-Williams v. Laspina-Williams, 46 Conn. Supp. 165,171, 742 A.2d 840 (1999). “Paraskevas v. Tunick, Superior Court, judicial district of Litchfield, Docket No. FA950072398 (April 23, 1997) (19 Conn. L. Rptr. 39) (Dranginis, J.) (couple cohabitated for several years and Ms. Tunick conceived a child by artificial insemination. Paraskevas petitioned for visitation of the minor child when the couple separated. Tunick moved to dismiss on several grounds including lack of jurisdiction. The court denied the motion concluding that the separation of a nontraditional family constituted a disruption of the family sufficient to bring the case within the jurisdictional requirements of § 46b-59 and the threshold requirements set forth in Castagno.” · W. v. W., 248 Conn. 487, 494, 728 A.2d 1076 (1999). “This court held that, although § 46b-56 no longer includes the phrase ‘child of the marriage,’ the concept ‘remains implicit in our entire statutory scheme governing marital dissolutions and retains viability by continuing to define who is a parent. . . .’ Doe v. Doe, supra,[ 244 Conn. [403,]422 [710 A.2d 1297 (1998)]. The court continued: ‘[T]he meaning of [the concept of a `child of the marriage'], in the context of a martial dissolution case, is limited to a child conceived by both parties, a child adopted by both parties, a child born to the wife and adopted by the husband, a child conceived by the husband and adopted by the wife, and a child born to the wife and conceived through artificial insemination by a donor pursuant to [General Statutes] §§ 45a-771 through 45a-779." Id., 435.” · In re Simon A. W., 1997 Ct. Sup. 5125, 5127-28 (Jud. District, New Haven, No. NO5-CP97-009105-A, May 27, 1997) 1997 WL 309576. "The provisions of Chapter 803a (Sec. 45a-771 through 779) entitled 'Children Conceived Through Artificial Insemination' shed no light on this case since, despite its title, they relate exclusively to children conceived by married women through artificial insemination by anonymous donors." · .Doe v. Doe, 244 Conn. 403, 419, 710 A.2d 1297 (1998).
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS: |
· 59 Am. Jur. 2d Parent and Child (2002). § 3. Definitions—“Surrogate mother” § 5. Definitions—“Child artificially inseminated” § 6. Definitions—“Family” § 36. Right of visitation § 56. Obligations of respective parents—Father of child artificially conceived · Robin Cheryl Miller, Annotation, Child Custody And Visitation Rights Arising From Same-Sex Relationship, 80 ALR5th 1 (2000). · Ardis L. Campbell, Annotation, Determination Of Status As Legal Or Natural Parents In Contested Surrogacy Births, 77 ALR5th 567 (2000). · Michael J. Yaworsky, Annotation, Rights And Obligations Resulting From Human Artificial Insemination, 83 ALR4th 295 (1991). · Edward L. Raymond, Jr., Annotation, Coverage Of Artificial Insemination Procedures Or Other Infertility Treatments By Health, Sickness, Or Hospitalization Insurance, 80 ALR4th 1059 (1990). · Sperm Bank Liability For Donor Semen Transmitting AIDS, 25 Am Jur POF3d 1 (1994). · Liability Of Sperm Banks, 50 Am Jur Trials 1 (1994).
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES: |
· 8 Arnold H. Rutkin et al. Connecticut Practice Series. Family Law and Practice With Forms (2d ed. 2000). Chapter 42. Child custody and visitation § 42.11. Custody claims by third party · 6 Arnold H. Rutkin, Family Law and Practice (2007). Chapter 64-A. Law of alternative reproductive technologies § 64A.04. Legal issues involved in artificial insemination [1] Introduction [2] Who may perform artificial insemination [3] Donor and recipient [4] Parentage where artificial insemination is by the husband [5] Legal issues involved in artificial insemination by non-husband sperm donor [d] Compensation to donors [6] Practical checklist [7] Checklist · 1 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody & Visitation Law & Practice (2007). Chapter 1. Overview: development in the law of child custody and visitation § 102. The changing definition of “parent:” assisted procreation [2] Types of assisted procreation [b] Artificial insemination [3] Assisted procreation and the Constitution [4] Preconception intentions versus genetic links [5] State parentage laws and assisted procreation [a] Generally [b] Paternal rights [i] Presumption of legitimacy [ii] Artificial insemination [c] Maternal rights · 2 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody & Visitation Law & Practice (2007). Chapter 11A. Assisted reproductive technologies § 11A.01. Clarification of terminology used in ART’s and collaborative reproduction § 11A-02. Medical aspects of ART: What is ART? § 11A-03. Parentage issues in ARTs § 11A-04. Compare adoption: Why ARTs demands a different approach § 11A-05. Statutory overview of collaborative reproduction § 11A-06. Case law on ARTs § 11A-07. Agreements on embyro preservation or other disposition § 11A-08. Preparing collaborative reproduction agreements § 11A-09. Conclusion
Chapter 17. Assisted reproduction: Constitutional and family law parameters by Ami S. Jaeger § 17.01. Keep your focus on the child § 17.02. Assisted reproduction and collaborative reproduction § 17.03. Directives and agreements § 17.04. Adoptions for children; Donations for embryos § 17.05. Checklist for counseling ART clients § 17.06. Assisted reproduction case law · 3 Joan Heifetz Hollinger et al., Adoption Law and Practice (2004). Chapter 14. Assisted reproductive technologies, collaborative reproduction, and adoption § 14.05. Statutory overview of collaborative reproduction § 14.06. Case law on ARTs § 14.08. Preparing collaborative reproduction agreements § 14.20. Charts summarizing state statutes on ARTs [2]. Artificial insemination · Handling Pregnancy & Birth Cases (1983). Chapter 4 “Conception Stage.” § 4.1 Definition; Overview § 4.3 Spousal consent § 4.5 Husband’s rights and obligations § 4.8 Unmarried female rights and obligations § 4.16 Malpractice · Samuel Green and John V. Long, Marriage and Family Law Agreements (1984). Chapter 5. Birth, parenthood and adoption § 5.02. Introduction to artificial insemination § 5.03. Artificial insemination and adultery § 5.04. Status and support rights of the child § 5.05. The consent form § 5.06. ¾Ramifications of consent § 5.07. Artificial insemination and the unmarried woman § 5.08. Confidentiality of the parties
|
|
INDICES TOPICS: |
· ALR Index: Artificial Insemination
|
|
LAW REVIEWS: |
· CHRISTINE A. BJORKMAN, SITTING IN LIMBO: THE ABSENCE OF CONNECTICUT REGULATION OF SURROGATE PARENTING AGREEMENTS AND ITS EFFECT ON PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT, Note, 21 Quinnipiac Probate L.J. no. 2, pp. 141-167 (2008). I. Introduction II. Background A. The current state of surrogacy in Connecticut B. Surrogacy in general C. Public policy consideration III. Types of regulation of ART used by other states A. Illinois Statute: Gestational Surrogate Act B. New York Statute: Surrogate Parenting Contracts C. California’s “Intended Parents” Doctrine IV. Connecticut’s Prior Attempt at Legislative Reform A. History and Prior Attempts at Legislative Reform B. Recommendations V. Conclusion · Anne LeVasseur, Note, Virtual Visitation: How Will Courts Respond To A New And Emerging Issue? 17 Connecticut Probate Law Journal 362 (2004). · Annette Ruth, Article, Virtual Mothers And The Meaning Of Parenthood, 34 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 683 (2001). · Ruthann Robson, Article, Making Mothers: Lesbian Legal Theory & Judicial Construction of Lesbian Mothers, 22 Women’s Rights L. Rep. 15 (2000). · Daryl Gordon-Ceresky, Note, Artificial Insemination: Its Effect on Paternity and Inheritance Rights, 9 Connecticut Probate Law Journal 245 (Spring, 1995). · Greenberg & Hirsh, Surrogate Motherhood and Artificial Insemination: Contractual Implications, 29 Medical Trial Technique Quarterly 149 (1982).
|
|
BIBLIOGRAPHIES: |
· E. Pratt , A Pathfinder On Artificial Insemination,” 8 Legal Reference Services Quarterly 117 (Spring-Summer 1988).
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
|
|
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic sources relating to in vitro fertilization including coverage by health insurance.
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
DEFINITION: |
· In vitro (latin for “in glass”) is the process by which an ovum(egg) is removed from a woman’s ovary and fertilized in a laboratory vessel with sperm of husband or donor.”
|
|
CASES: |
· In Re Baby M, 542 A.2d 52 (N.J. Super. Ch. 1988) · In the Matter of the Adoption of T.N.F., 781 P.2d 973 (Alaska 1989).
|
|
LEGISLATIVE: |
· “In vitro fertilization,” by Jerome Harleston. Connecticut General Assembly, Office of Legislative Research Report 98-R-0847 (June 26, 1998).
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS: |
· Elizabeth A. Trainor, Annotation, Right Of Husband, Wife, Or Other Party To Custody Of Frozen Embryo, Pre-Embryo, Or Pre-Zygote In Event Of Divorce, Death, Or Other Circumstances, 87 ALR5th 253 (2001).
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES: |
· 6 Arnold H. Rutkin, Family Law and Practice (2007). Chapter 64-A. The Law of Alternative Reproductive Technologies § 64A.05 Legal issues involved in In Vitro fertilization [1] Introduction [2] Parentage issues involved in In Vitro fertilization [3] Other issues in In Vitro fertilization [4] Practical comment [5] Checklist
· 1 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody & Visitation Law & Practice (2007). § 1.02. The changing definition of “parent” assisted procreation [2]. Types of assisted procreation [d]. In Vitro fertilization [e]. In Vitro fertilization with donor sperm [f]. In Vitro fertilization with donated eggs [3]. Assisted procreation and the constitution · 2 Nina M. Vitek, Disputed Paternity Proceedings (2004). Chapter 17. Assisted reproduction: Constitutional and family law parameters · 3 Joan Heifetz Hollinger et al., Adoption Law and Practice (2004). Chapter 14. Assisted reproductive technologies, collaborative reproduction, and adoption § 14.05. Statutory overview of collaborative reproduction § 14.06. Case law on ARTs [2]. Disputes over preserved embryos § 14.07. Agreements on embryo preservation or other disposition [1]. Need for agreement [2]. Essential provisions of agreement § 14.08. Preparing collaborative reproduction agreements § 14.20. Charts summarizing state statutes on ARTs [3]. Egg donation · Handling Pregnancy & Birth Cases (1983). Chapter 4 Conception Stage. II. In vitro fertilization § 4.22 Constitutional considerations § 4.23 Tort action for destruction of in vitro fertilization conceptus
|
|
LAW REVIEWS: |
· Daryl Gordon-Ceresky, Note, Artificial Insemination: Its Effect on Paternity and Inheritance Rights, 9 Connecticut Probate Law Journal 245 (Spring, 1995). · Jennifer Marigliano Dehmel, Note, To Have Or Not To Have: Whose Procreative Rights Prevail In Disputes Over Disposition Of Frozen Embryos, 27 Conn. L. Rev. 1377 (1994-95). · Tanya Feliciano, Note, Davis v. Davis: What About Future Disputes, 26 Conn. L. Rev. 305 (1993).
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic resources relating to surrogate motherhood in Connecticut including payments to surrogate and contents of agreement
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
DEFINITION: |
· “For a fee of $10,000, a woman agrees to be artificially inseminated with the semen of another woman’s husband; she is to conceive the a child, carry it to term, and after its birth surrender it to the natural father and his wife. The intent of the contract is that the child’s natural mother will thereafter be forever separated from her child. The wife is to adopt the child, and she and the natural father are to be regarded as its parents for all purposes.” Matter of Baby M., 537 A.2d 1227, 1234 (N.J., 1988). · Equitable parent doctrine: “rejected by this court, in which a court ‘allow[s] a nonparent to seek custody under the same criteria as would be applied to a biological or adoptive parent.’ Doe v. Doe, supra, 244 Conn. [403,]479 (Katz, J., concurring and dissenting).” W. v. W., 248 Conn. 487, 507 fn9, 728 A.2d 1076 (1999).
|
|
LEGISLATIVE: |
· Committee Bill No. 5966 (1999). An act concerning surrogate mothers, adoption and guardians of minors. [Not passed].
· Lawrence K. Furbish, UNIFORM STATUS OF CHILDREN OF ASSISTED CONCEPTION LAW AND CONNECTICUT LAW, Connecticut General Assembly. Office of Legislative Research Report 99-R-0982 (October 1, 1999). “Connecticut has not adopted either version of the model act; as you may remember, the model law gives states two options depending on whether or not they wish to allow surrogate parent contracts. Connecticut has no law regarding surrogate parent contracts so we have nothing comparable to these provisions. (We have enclosed for your information a copy of a recent report on surrogacy, 99-R-0857).”
· Lawrence K. Furbish, SURROGATE PARENT CONTRACTS IN CONNECTICUT AND OTHER STATES, Connecticut General Assembly. Office of Legislative Research Report 99-R-0857 (September 3, 1999). “Connecticut does not either explicitly authorize or prohibit surrogate parenting contracts. Accordingly, people are free to enter into such contracts. As long as both sides live up to the contract there would be no problem.”
· Lawrence K. Furbish, DOE V. DOE, SUPREME COURT DECISION, Connecticut General Assembly. Office of Legislative Research Report 98-R-0550 (May 1, 1998).
· Lawrence K. Furbish, CUSTODY, SURROGATE BIRTH, AND ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION, Connecticut General Assembly. Office of Legislative Research Report 98-R-0032 (February 3, 1998).
· Lawrence K. Furbish, SURROGATE PARENTING, SALE OF BABIES, AND PERMISSIVE ADOPTION, Connecticut General Assembly. Office of Legislative Research Report 96-R-01215 (September 16, 1996). “Connecticut has no law prohibiting, authorizing, or regulating surrogate parenting. People entering or carrying out a surrogate contract would apparently not be violating any law, and a surrogacy arrangement would become legal issue only if the parties had a disagreement and took it to court.”
· CHILDREN CONCEIVED BY ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION AND CARRIED BY A SURROGATE MOTHER, Connecticut General Assembly. Office of Legislative Research Report 98-R-0477 (March 26, 1998). Whether parents initiating the process could be listed on the child’s birth certificate without taking any other legal action.
|
|
FORMS: |
· 13C American Jurisprudence Legal Forms (2002). Chapter 191. Parent and child § 191:97. Surrogate parenting agreement § 191:98. Agreement to select surrogate mother · 6D Nicols Cyclopedia of Legal Forms (1992). Surrogate parenting transactions §§ 6.7377 - 6.7396 § 6.7378 Surrogate parenting agreement § 6.7389 Surrogate application form
|
|
CASES: |
· Doe v. Roe, 246 Conn. 652, 653, 717 A.2d 706 (1998). “The narrow question presented by this appeal is whether the Superior Court has subject matter jurisdiction to render judgment in accordance with an agreement that includes a promise by a surrogate mother to consent to the termination of her parental rights in Probate Court.” · Doe v. Doe, 244 Conn. 403, 405, 710 A.2d 1297 (1998). “This dissolution of marriage case involves a custody dispute concerning a minor child who was conceived by artificial insemination between the defendant husband and a surrogate mother (surrogate) whose parental rights and whose then husband's parental rights, if any, have now been terminated.” · In Matter of Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227, 109 N.J. 396, 77 ALR4th 1 (1988).
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS: |
· Ardis L. Campbell, Annotation, Determination Of Status As Legal Or Natural Parents In Contested Surrogacy Births, 77 ALR5th 567 (2000). · Danny R. Veilleux, Annotation, Validity and Construction of Surrogate Parenting Agreement, 77 ALR4th 70 (1990). · Michael J. Yaworsky, Annotation, Rights And Obligations Resulting From Human Artificial Insemination, 83 ALR4th 295 (1991).
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES: |
· 1 Joan H. Hollinger et al., Adoption Law and Practice (2003). Chapter 2. Consent to adoption · 3 Joan H. Hollinger et al., Adoption Law and Practice (2004). Chapter 14. Assisted reproductive technologies, collaborative reproduction and adoption § 14.05. Statutory overview of collaborative reproduction § 14.06. Case law on ARTs § 14.07. Agreements on embryo preservation § 14.08. Preparing collaborative reproduction agreements § 14.20. Charts summarizing state statutes on ART [1] Surrogacy and gestational carriers · 2 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody & Visitation Law & Practice (2007). Chapter 11A. Assisted reproductive technologies and collaborative reproduction § 11A.05. Statutory overview of collaborative reproduction § 11A.06. Case law on ARTs § 11A.08. Preparing collaborative reproduction agreements [1] Introduction [2] Requirement of medical screening [3] Requirement of psychological evaluation [4] Compensation [5] Relinquishment of parental rights [6] Personal protection of donor or carrier [7] Nature of parties’ relationship [8] Summary of elements for gestational carrier agreements · 6 Arnold H. Rutkin, Family Law and Practice (2007). Chapter 64-A. Law of Alternative Reproduction Technologies § 64A.02. Types of alternative reproductive technologies [5] Surrogate parenting § 64A.07 Legal issues in surrogate parenting. [1] Introduction [2] Parentage issues in surrogate parenting [3] Fees for surrogacy [4] Selecting the surrogate [5] Practical comment [6] Checklist § 64A.08 Proposed statutory provisions for alternative reproductive technologies · Ann M. Haralambie, Handling Child Custody Cases (1983). Chapter 9. Assisted conception and surrogacy § 9.13. Surrogacy generally § 9.14. Gratuitous surrogacy § 9.15. Surrogacy for a fee § 9.16. Rights of surrogate § 9.17. Status of the surrogate’s husband § 9.18. Enforceability and remedies
Chapter 17. Assisted reproduction: Constitutional and family law parameters § 17.02. Assisted reproduction and collaborative reproduction § 17.03. Directives and agreements § 17.05. Checklist for counseling ART clients § 17.06. Assisted reproduction case law § 17.10. Gestational carriers and surrogates: Why the distinction is significant Appendix 17B. State laws on assisted reproduction § 17B.01. State laws re: Surrogacy and gestational carriers · Handling Pregnancy & Birth Cases (1983) Chapter 4. Conception stage Surrogate motherhood § 4.25. Definition and background § 4.26. Ethical considerations § 4.27. Constitutional considerations § 4.28. Contract considerations § 4.29. Policy and statutory considerations § 4.30. Sample legislation. Form for proposed legislation § 4.31. Explanation of proposed legislation § 4.32. Sample contract form · Samuel Green and John V. Long, Marriage and Family Law Agreements (1984). Chapter 5. Birth, parenthood and adoption § 5.09. Introduction to surrogate motherhood § 5.10. Presumption of legitimacy § 5.11. Statutory impediments to surrogate motherhood § 5.12. —Baby brokerage statutes § 5.13. Surrogate motherhood as a constitutional right § 5.14. Drafting surrogate motherhood contract § 5.15. Issues to be considered before executing the surrogate motherhood contract § 5.16. Compensating the surrogate mother § 5.17. Enforcing the surrogate motherhood contract
|
|
LAW REVIEWS: |
CONNECTICUT · Donald D. Mooreland, Note, Reproductive Technology Outpacing Connecticut Lawmakers, 14 Quinnipiac Probate Law Journal (1999). · Samuel V. Schoonmaker, III, Surrogate Parenting: Connecticut's Efforts to Regulate Surrogate Motherhood, 6 Connecticut Family Law Journal 1, (January 1988). · Joseph B White, Surrogate Parenting Bill Introduced, 13 Connecticut Law Tribune no. 14 (April 6, 1987).
OTHER · George P. Smith, Razor's Edge Of Human Bonding: Artificial Fathers And Surrogate Mothers, 5 Western New England Law Review 639 (Spring 1983). · Greenberg & Hirsh, Surrogate Motherhood and Artificial Insemination: Contractual Implications, 29 Medical Trial Technique Quarterly 149 (1982). · Martha A. Field, Surrogate Motherhood: The Legal and Human Issues, 102 Harvard Law Review 1074 (March 1989). · Deborah Kay Walther ‘Ownership’ of the Fertilized Ovum In Vitro, 26 Family Law Quarterly, no. 3 (Fall 1992), p. 235. [available at Norwich Law Library] · Anne Goodwin, Determination of Legal Parentage in Egg Donation, Embryo transplantation, and Gestational Surrogacy Arrangements, 26 Family Law Quarterly 275 (Fall 1992) [available at Norwich Law Library] · Herbert T. Krimmel, Can Surrogate Parenting be Stopped? An Inspection of the Constitutional and Pragmatic Aspects of Outlawing Surrogate Mother Arrangements, 27 Valparaiso University Law Review 1 (Fall 1992).
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic resources relating to the tort of wrongful birth or life in Connecticut.
|
|
CURRENCY: |
· 2008 Edition
|
|
DEFINITION: |
· “The terms ‘wrongful birth’ and ‘wrongful life’ are but shorthand phrases that describe the causes of action of parents and children when negligent medical treatment deprives parents of the option to terminate a pregnancy to avoid the birth of a defective child.” Procanik by Procanik v. Cillo, 478 A2d 755, 760 (N.J. 1984). · ‘wrongful life’ refers to a cause of action brought by or on behalf of a defective child who claims that but for the defendant doctor’s negligent advice to or treatment of its parents, the child would not have been born. “ Ibid.
|
|
FORMS: |
· Handling Pregnancy & Birth Cases (1983). § 6.12. Sample complaint. · Cause of action for wrongful birth or wrongful life, 7 COA 589 (1985). § 25. Sample complaint. Wrongful birth action
|
|
CASES: |
· “The defendants demur to those allegations insofar as they purport to allege (1) a cause of action for wrongful life; (2) a cause of action for the cost of rearing their fourth child; and (3) a cause of action for the emotional stress and strain of having that child. Their demurrer is based on the contention that those causes of action are not authorized by statute or common law and are against the public policy of Connecticut.” Anonymous v. Hospital (1976-11), 33 Conn. Sup. 125, 366 A.2d 204. · Burns v. Hanson, 249 Conn. 809, 811, 734 A.2d 964 (1999). “The issues in this action for malpractice arise out of the birth of a healthy child to a severely disabled mother, who, in accordance with medical advise, had decided not to have another child.” · Martinez v. Hartford Hospital, 4 Conn. L. Reptr. 57, 60 (1991). “In the instant case, plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to support a cause of action for medical malpractice. Further, damages arising from defendant’s negligence relating to the birth of the twins and the costs of raising them are properly pleaded and recoverable.” · Ochs v. Borrelli, 187 Conn. 253, 258, 445 A.2d 883 (1982). “In our view, the better rule is to allow parents to recover for the expenses of rearing an unplanned child to majority when the child’s birth results from negligent medical care.”
|
|
WEST KEY NUMBERS:
|
· Physicians and Surgeons # 18.110
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS: |
· Anne M. Payne, Annotation, Sexual Partner’s Tort Liability To Other Partner For Fraudulent Misrepresentation Regarding Sterility Or Use Of Birth Control Resulting In Pregnancy, 2 ALR5th 301 (1992). · Anne M. Payne, Annotation, Parent’s Child Support Liability As Affected By Other Parent’s Fraudulent Misrepresentation Regarding Sterility Or Use Of Birth Control, Or Refusal To Abort Pregnancy, 2 ALR5th 337 (1992). · Russell G. Donaldson, Annotation, Recoverability Of Cost Of Raising Normal, Health Child Born As Result Of Physician’s Negligence Or Breach Of Contract Or Warranty, 89 ALR4th 632 (1991). · Gregory G. Sarno, Annotation, Recoverability Of Compensatory Damages For Mental Anguish Or Emotional Distress For Tortiously Causing Another Birth, 74 ALR4th 798 (1989). · Cause of action for wrongful birth or wrongful life, 7 COA 589 (1985). · Cause of action against physician for wrongful conception or wrongful pregnancy, 3 COA 83 (1984).
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES: |
· Richard L. Newman and Jeffrey S. Wildstein, Tort Remedies in Connecticut (1996). Chapter 9: “Wrongful pregnancy, birth and life” § 9-4 Wrongful birth · Handling Pregnancy & Birth Cases (1983). Chapter 6. Prenatal Stage: Emerging Theories of Liability §§ 6.4 to 6.6 Elements of cause of action §§ 6.7 to 6.11 Damages
Chapter 29. Challenging the obligation to pay child-rearing costs Liability of third parties affecting the support obligations § 29.10. Negligence as basis for “Wrongful Conception” claim § 29.11. Events which may create a ‘wrongful conception’ claim § 29.12. Theory and validity of “wrongful conception” cause of action § 29.13. Other theories of liability § 29.14. Recoveries available § 29.15. Rationales for the denial of child-rearing costs § 29.16. Rationales for the recovery of child-rearing costs § 29.17. Constitutional dimension of the issue: privacy and procreation choice § 29.18. Author’s strategies
|
|
LAW REVIEWS: |
· Garrett M. Moore, Life As An Injury: There Is A Debate Going On Over Whether Actions Known As ‘Wrongful Conception’ And ‘Wrongful Life’ Are Valid Causes Of Action, 23 Connecticut Law Tribune no. 47, p. 15 (November 24, 1997).
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Supervising Law Librarian, Connecticut Judicial Department, Law Library at Middletown, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. EMAIL
|
Table 1 Abortion law in Connecticut
Abortion Law in Connecticut
|
|
|
Statutes |
Conn. Gen. Stat. (2007) Chapter 368y Abortion §19a-600. De |