Supreme Court Lets Ruling Stand in Surrogacy Case : Rights: Federal justices decline to hear arguments. The decision allows the genetic parents to keep custody of the boy and ends the legal challenge of woman who carried him to term.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to review a precedent-setting surrogate motherhood case from Orange County, letting stand a lower court ruling that gave the genetic parents custody of a child carried to term by another woman.

The decision ended Mark and Crispina Calvert’s three-year effort to retain custody of their son, Christopher, in the face of a legal challenge from Anna Johnson, who filed suit while carrying the child.

Even before he was born on Sept. 19, 1990, Christopher unwittingly became the center of a nationwide debate over the rights of surrogate mothers. The spectrum of opinions ranges from those who advocate banning the practice of surrogacy to those who believe that surrogate mothers should have specific parental rights.

The California Supreme Court set a national precedent last spring when it ruled that Johnson, a Santa Ana nurse, had no rights to the child she called Matthew.

While upholding the surrogacy contract as valid, the court reasoned that custody should go to the Calverts, residents of Tustin, because they supplied the fertilized egg and intended to raise the boy.

“We’re just overjoyed with the decision,” said Mark Calvert, who was joined by his wife and son at a news conference. “We’re just real thankful that our nightmare is over.”

Johnson’s attorney said Monday’s defeat left her still grieving for the boy she considered her own.

Although the high court made the Calvert-Johnson case the law of the land in California, the justices’ refusal to hear arguments in the case will do little to quell the nettlesome debate nationwide over the rights of surrogate mothers, legal experts say.

“No single case or decision could settle an issue when there is such a widespread . . . dispute about reproductive technology and the struggle to determine what is a ‘parent,’ ” said Marjorie Shultz, a UC Berkeley law professor.

“The court has missed the opportunity of the century,” said Johnson’s attorney, Richard C. Gilbert.

Johnson, a former Marine, plans to pursue the issue in a new venue--Congress. She hopes to see federal regulations adopted governing surrogacy arrangements, Gilbert said.

The Calverts contracted with Johnson in January, 1990, to bear a child for $10,000. While she was pregnant, Johnson told the Calverts she wanted to keep the infant.

The Calverts sought a court order to enforce their contract, which had been provided by a Beverly Hills surrogacy agency.

A judge awarded custody to the Calverts; Johnson responded by filing suit.

Of the more than 4,000 surrogate births in the United States since 1980, only a few dozen have involved gestational surrogates like Johnson, who have no genetic ties to the offspring.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to accept the case, issued without explanation, was interpreted in a variety of ways.

Attorneys for the Calverts said the decision implied that the lower court’s ruling was the proper one. Opponents of surrogacy criticized the justices as “legal cowards” who feared taking on a difficult issue.