Decision-Making Dialog: Campbell versus Reeves' "Custody Dispute" In January, 2010, Joan Reeves responded to an ad from an online service that matches potential surrogate mothers with couples who want a child but cannot conceive. Mrs. Campbell suffered from a chronic non life-threatening condition that could endanger her life during pregnancy. Mrs. Reeves and the Campbells signed a contract that stipulated the terms of their agreement: Joan Reeves would be artificially inseminated with Thomas Campbell's sperm; after the birth of the child, the Campbells would have custody of the child and parental rights; Joan would be paid $7000 in compensation. Following the birth of the child, Mrs. Reeves decided that she wanted to keep the baby. To...The end:
.....ought into question the validity of the contract. Mr. Jackson was quick to point out that the contract was the crux of his case. And Miss Turner disputed whether a meeting of the minds had ever occurred before the contract was signed. Miss Turner’s claims of emotional trauma to Mrs. Reeves and the baby were also part of her argument. But this held no sway over the judge because the Campbells had demonstrated willingness to support a relationship between the baby and Mrs. Reeves. In the final ruling, Judge Nimitz’s decision came down to due consideration for the law with respect to contract validity requirements which had been fully met. WORKS CITED Contract. 2010. law.cornell.edu. 14 Mar 2011, <http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract.