Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 25
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-218 (2026)

Surrogate parentage contracts; prohibition; custody; definition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. No person may enter into, induce, arrange, procure or otherwise assist in the formation of a surrogate parentage contract.

B. A surrogate is the legal mother of a child born as a result of a surrogate parentage contract and is entitled to custody of that child.

C. If the mother of a child born as a result of a surrogate contract is married, her husband is presumed to be the legal father of the child. This presumption is rebuttable.

D. For the purposes of this section, "surrogate parentage contract" means a contract, agreement or arrangement in which a woman agrees to the implantation of an embryo not related to that woman or agrees to conceive a child through natural or artificial insemination and to voluntarily relinquish her parental rights to the child.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1994–2017 · leading case: Soos v. Superior Ct. Cnty. of Maricopa, 897 P.2d 1356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Soos v. Superior Ct. Cnty. of Maricopa, 897 P.2d 1356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 26× “section 25-218 (1991), the Surrogate was the legal mother of the triplets.”
Raftopol v. Ramey, 12 A.3d 783 (Conn. 2011). · cites it 4× “2d 1356 (1994) (holding Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 25-218 unconstitutional in violation of federal equal protection clause because statute creates rebuttable presumption that husband of gestational carrier is father, but does not allow intended mother to rebut presumption that gestational…”
David J. Rosecky v. Monica M. Schissel, 2013 WI 66 (Wis. 2013). · cites it 2× “Code § 26 -10A-34(c) (2013); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-218 (2012); Ark.”
Kimberly McLaughlin v. Suzan McLaughlin, 382 P.3d 118 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “1994) (finding A.R.S. § 25-218, which prohibits surrogate parentage contracts, violated equal protection principles insofar as it allowed men to rebut presumption of paternity but did not permit a woman, whose egg had been implanted in the surrogate, to rebut the presumption of…”
Doe v. Doe, 710 A.2d 1297 (Conn. 1998). “In Connecticut, there are no equivalent provisions covering the use of a surrogate or donor eggs, nor does the legislative history of the artificial *470 insemination statutes, §§ 45a-771 through 45a-779, appear to contemplate such occurrences. This is in contrast to other…”
Turner v. Steiner, 398 P.3d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “1994) (holding that the statute prohibiting surrogacy contracts, A.R.S. § 25-218, unconstitutionally violated the biological mother’s right to equal protection of the laws because it did not allow her to prove maternity, but did allow the surrogate's husband to rebut the…”
R.R. v. M.H., 689 N.E.2d 790 (Mass. 1998). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-218 (A) (West 1991); D.”
Unknown, 598 F.3d 592. · cites it 2× “, Ariz.Rev. Stat. § 25-218 (abrogated on other grounds by Soos v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-218(A) — 1 case
Raftopol v. Ramey, 12 A.3d 783 (Conn. 2011). “2d 1356 (1994) (holding Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 25-218 unconstitutional in violation of federal equal protection clause because statute creates rebuttable presumption that husband of gestational carrier is father, but does not allow intended mother to rebut presumption that gestational…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-218(B) — 2 cases
Soos v. Superior Ct. Cnty. of Maricopa, 897 P.2d 1356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “section 25-218 (1991), the Surrogate was the legal mother of the triplets.”
Turner v. Steiner, 398 P.3d 110 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “1994) (holding that the statute prohibiting surrogacy contracts, A.R.S. § 25-218, unconstitutionally violated the biological mother’s right to equal protection of the laws because it did not allow her to prove maternity, but did allow the surrogate's husband to rebut the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-218(C) — 1 case
Soos v. Superior Ct. Cnty. of Maricopa, 897 P.2d 1356 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “section 25-218 (1991), the Surrogate was the legal mother of the triplets.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.