Editing Openai/6940a7dd-57cc-800a-9d04-d5309cb12945 (section)

=== 1. Josh and Elsie (Intended Parents) ===

Core argument:

They would argue that they were the intended or psychological parents and that the law should recognize “intent” over biology or gestation.

Legal theory:

Many states recognize “intent-based” parentage in assisted reproduction cases. Under statutes or case law, the people who intended to parent the child can be declared legal parents even if they are not genetically related. For example:

• In In re Marriage of Buzzanca, the California Supreme Court held that intended parents in a surrogacy arrangement could be the legal parents if the surrogate had no genetic link and the parties intended the child to be raised by the couple.

• Some states have parentage statutes that allow intended parents to be listed on the birth certificate if there was an agreement.

Potential arguments:

• Contract formation even without writing: They could argue that the pattern of behavior and mutual understanding created a binding oral agreement.

• Equitable estoppel: Because everyone acted as though Josh and Elsie were the intended parents, it would be unjust to deny them parental status.

• Best interests of the child: They planned and prepared for this child, which may influence the court’s view.

Weaknesses:

• Many states require written agreements for assisted reproduction.

• Without a signed surrogacy contract, statutory protections may not apply.