Supreme Court Of New Jersey.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.
 
In the Matter of BABY M, a pseudonym for an actual person.
 
 
Argued Sept. 14, 1987.
Decided Feb. 3, 1988.
 
 
SYNOPSIS
 
 Natural father and his wife brought suit seeking to enforce surrogate parenting agreement, to compel surrender of infant born to surrogate mother, to restrain any interference with their custody of infant, and to terminate surrogatemother's parental rights to allow adoption of child by wife of natural father.   The Superior Court, Chancery Division/Family Part, Bergen County, 217 N.J.Super. 313, 525 A.2d 1128, held that surrogate contract was valid, ordered that mother's parental rights be terminated and that sole custody of child be granted to natural father, and authorized adoption of child by father's wife.   Motherappealed, and the Supreme Court granted direct certification.   The Supreme Court, Wilentz, C.J., held that:  (1) surrogate contract conflicted with laws prohibiting use of money in connection with adoptions, laws requiring proof of parental unfitness or abandonment before termination of parental rights is ordered or adoption is granted, and laws making surrender of custody and consent to adoptionrevocable in private placement adoptions;  (2) surrogate contract conflicted with state public policy;  (3) right of procreation did not entitle natural father and his wife to custody of child;  (4) best interests of child justified awarding custody to father and his wife;  and (5) mother was entitled to visitation with child.
 
 Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
 
 
 
Mother ofchild born pursuant to surrogate parenting contract was entitled to visitation at some point with child, whose best interests justified placing custody in natural father and his wife;  on remand, trial court could not determine mother was not entitled to visitation, but was to determine what kind of visitation should be granted to mother, with or without conditions, and when and under whatcircumstances visitation should commence.
 **1232 *407 Harold J. Cassidy, Red Bank, and Alan J. Karcher, Sayreville, for appellants, Mary Beth and Richard Whitehead (Cassidy, Foss & San Filippo, attorneys;  Harold J. Cassidy, Red Bank, Alan J. Karcher, Sayreville, Robert W. Ruggieri, Somerville, Randolph H. Wolf, Red Bank, and Louis N. Rainone, Sayreville, on the briefs).
 
 Gary N. Skoloff,Livingston, for respondents, William and Elizabeth Stern  (Skoloff & Wolfe, attorneys;  Gary N. Skoloff, Francis W. Donahue, and Edward J. O'Donnell, on the brief).
 
 Lorraine A. Abraham, Hackensack, Guardian ad litem, pro se (Lorraine A. Abraham, attorney;  Lorraine A. Abraham and Steven T. Kearns, on the brief).
 
 Annette M. Tobia, Lawrenceville, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiaeDr. Betsy P. Aigen, (Spivak & Tobia, attorneys).
 
 George B. Gelman, Hackensack, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae American Adoption Congress (Gelman & McNish, attorneys).
 
 Steven N. Taieb, Mount Laurel, and Steven F. McDowell, Milwaukee, Wis., a member of the Wisconsin bar, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
  Steven P. Weissman submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO.
 
 John R. Holsinger, Merrill O'Brien, Roseland, Mary Sue Henifin, and John H. Hall, and Terry E. Thornton, New York City, members of the New York bar, submitted a brief on behalf of amicus curiae Concerned United Birthparents, Inc. (Ellenport & Holsinger, Roseland, attorneys).
  David H. Dugan, III, Moorestown, and Joy R. Jowdy, a member of the Texas bar, submitted a brief on behalf of amici curiae Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, National Legal Foundation, Family Research Council of America, United Families Foundation, and Judicial Reform Project.
 
 *408 Alfred F. Russo, Woodbridge, and Andrew C. Kimbrell, a member of the Pennsylvania bar, and Edward Lee...