Arizona Revised Statutes § 25-218 prohibits entering, inducing, arranging, or assisting a surrogate-parentage contract and treats the person who gives birth as the legal mother. A state appellate court held the statute unconstitutional as applied to a genetic intended mother, which supports a parentage remedy in some cases but did not repeal the contract prohibition.
State law makes some surrogacy agreements void, prohibited, or available only through a narrow pathway that requires specialized review.
A compensated or uncompensated surrogate-parentage contract is prohibited and cannot be treated as an enforceable Arizona agreement. Soos v. Superior Court opened a route to rebut maternity in its genetic-intended-mother setting, not a general statutory safe harbor for gestational contracts.
Because § 25-218 prohibits the agreement itself, Arizona does not provide a compliant-carrier checklist that makes the agreement enforceable. The statute presumes the person who gives birth is the legal mother and, if married, presumes that person's husband is the father.
Courts may enter pre-birth parentage orders in some genetic gestational-surrogacy matters based on Soos and later trial-court practice, but no statute guarantees that procedure. Donor-assisted or non-genetic intended-parent cases require a carefully planned post-birth or adoption alternative.
Do not describe Arizona as having authorized gestational-surrogacy contracts merely because courts have granted parentage relief in some cases.
The decision protected a genetic intended mother's ability to establish maternity; it did not broadly validate every contract or family configuration.
If the carrier is married, § 25-218 creates a presumption involving the spouse that the parentage proceeding must resolve.
Sequence matters. Use these steps to prepare for a conversation with qualified assisted-reproduction professionals.
Before any matching, agreement, or Arizona-based assistance, obtain advice from Arizona counsel about § 25-218's prohibition, whether Soos supports a petition on the planned genetics, and what adoption or post-birth route is available.
Because § 25-218 prohibits the agreement itself, Arizona does not provide a compliant-carrier checklist that makes the agreement enforceable. The statute presumes the person who gives birth is the legal mother and, if married, presumes that person's husband is the father.
Complete medical, psychological, insurance, compensation or expense, and independent legal review before medication or embryo transfer. A compensated or uncompensated surrogate-parentage contract is prohibited and cannot be treated as an enforceable Arizona agreement. Soos v. Superior Court opened a route to rebut maternity in its genetic-intended-mother setting, not a general statutory safe harbor for gestational contracts.
Courts may enter pre-birth parentage orders in some genetic gestational-surrogacy matters based on Soos and later trial-court practice, but no statute guarantees that procedure. Donor-assisted or non-genetic intended-parent cases require a carefully planned post-birth or adoption alternative.
Review the linked statutes, court materials, public guidance, and clearly identified practice sources as a starting point for current legal review.
Laws, court practices, and local filing procedures can change. This page provides general educational information, not legal advice. Consult independent assisted-reproduction counsel licensed in the relevant state before relying on it.
Choose a city to open its local resource page.
