Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “In re Baby M”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1988

In re Baby M.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Civil Rights↗
PubMed1988

In re Baby M.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Adoption↗
PubMed1987

In re Baby M.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Child↗
PubMed1987

In Re Baby M, 31 March 1987.

The plaintiffs, the natural father of a child born as the result of a surrogate parenting agreement and his wife, sought an order forcing the natural mother of the child to surrender the child to them, restraining the natural mother from interfering with their custody of the child, and terminating her parental rights so that they could adopt the child. The Court ruled that the surrogate parenthood contract should be enforced and granted the order sought by the plaintiffs. It also rejected a request by the maternal grandparents for visitation rights and ruled that joint custody was not appropriate and that the adoption laws did not apply to surrogate parenthood contracts. It stated that its decision was based solely on contract principles and what was in the child's best interests, holding that the contract was not unconscionable or voidable for fraud and that the constitutional right to procreation extends to the use of surrogates.

Adoption↗
PubMed1994

Selective treatment decisions and the legal rights of very young infants.

Selective treatment of neonatal infants who are terminally ill or born with profound disabilities is becoming a controversial issue. The potential of medical technology, the practices of doctors and the expectations of parents have moved ahead of the law in this area. The interests of parents, children and medical practitioners would be better served by a clarification of the law. Legal change should be based on an ethical and moral foundation. The application of the "best interests" test should be given further consideration.

Australia↗