A New York appellate court has reversed a previous ruling regarding the parentage of two children born through surrogacy. The decision, issued on May 1, 2026, affects the legal status of Mary B.L. and Robert A.L. as parents of Baby A and Baby B, who were born in late 2023. The court emphasized the importance of considering the best interests of the children in such cases.
The case began when Mary and Robert executed a surrogacy agreement with Isabella F., the surrogate, in February 2023. They sought a judgment of parentage in Family Court, which initially granted their petition, declaring them the only legal parents upon the birth of the children. However, complications arose when it was discovered that Robert had not signed the surrogacy agreement and was unaware of the parentage proceedings.
This revelation led to a rescission order from the Family Court, which not only rescinded the initial judgment of parentage but also involved the Steuben County Department of Social Services (DSS) in the case. Following the birth of the children, they were placed in the care of DSS and subsequently with a foster family. The legal battle continued as Robert sought to vacate the rescission order, arguing that it was entered without proper notice or a hearing.
The Family Court later revived the initial judgment of parentage but faced further challenges from the Attorney for the Children (AFC), who argued that the statutory requirements for the surrogacy agreement were not met. The AFC contended that the court failed to hold a hearing and neglected to consider the best interests of the children in its ruling.
The appellate court, consisting of Judges Lindley, Bannister, Montour, Greenwood, and Hannah, ultimately agreed with the AFC. The court ruled that the Family Court must have considered the best interests of the children, stating, "the court was required to determine parentage based on the intent of the parties, taking into account the best interests of the child[ren]." The judges emphasized that the surrogacy agreements in question were unenforceable due to procedural issues, including Robert's lack of signature and the timing of the agreements.
As a result of the appellate court's decision, the 2025 judgment of parentage was reversed. The case has been sent back to Family Court for further proceedings, where a hearing must be held to properly consider both the intent of the parties and the best interests of Baby A and Baby B.
This ruling has significant implications for future surrogacy cases in New York. It underscores the necessity for legal agreements to meet statutory requirements and highlights the court's obligation to prioritize the welfare of children in parentage determinations. The decision also clarifies that even when parties agree on parentage, the court must ensure that the legal framework supports that agreement.
Moving forward, this ruling may influence how surrogacy agreements are drafted and executed, as parties will need to ensure compliance with all legal requirements to avoid similar disputes. The case also raises questions about the role of the Attorney for the Children in such proceedings, particularly when the best interests of the child are at stake.
As for the next steps, the matter will return to Family Court for a hearing on the parentage determination. This hearing will be crucial in establishing the legal status of Mary and Robert as parents and ensuring that the best interests of Baby A and Baby B are adequately considered. It remains to be seen whether any further appeals will arise from this ongoing legal battle.