Wis. Stat. § 891.40
Enforcement of surrogacy agreements promotes stability and permanence in family relationships because it allows the intended parents to plan for the arrival of their child, reinforces the expectations of all parties to the agreement, and reduces contentious litigation. The surrogacy agreement in this case was enforceable except for the portions of the agreement requiring a voluntary termination of parental rights (TPR). The TPR provisions did not comply with the procedural safeguards set forth in s. 48.41 for a voluntary TPR because the biological mother would not consent to the TPR and there was no legal basis for involuntary termination. The TPR provisions were severable. Rosecky v. Schissel, 2013 WI 66, 349 Wis. 2d 84, 833 N.W.2d 634, 11-2166. The Department of Health Services's practice before May 2, 2016, of enforcing sub. (1) against female married couples but not different-sex couples was unconstitutional. The department is directed to construe sub. (1) in gender-neutral terms. In particular, the word husband" in sub. (1) should be construed to mean "spouse." Torres v. Seemeyer, (2016). See also Pavan v. Smith, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 2075, 198 L. Ed. 2d 636 (2017). Viewpoint: Wisconsin's Undeveloped Surrogacy Law. Walsh. Wis. Law. Mar. 2012. As I See It: Out of Sync: Assistive Reproductive Technology & Parentage Law. Walsh. Wis. Law. May 2017.