The law of South Carolina does not directly deal with the issue of surrogacy specifically. In addition, the issue of surrogacy agreements involving lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals has not yet been considered by the courts.
Although the 2003 Federal District Court decision in the case of Mid-South Ins. Co. v. Doe[i] did not directly deal with the validity of surrogacy agreements, it dealt with the status (with regard to an insurance policy) of a child born out of a surrogacy agreement. The husband of the surrogate sought coverage for the child under his insurance policy’s coverage of a “natural child.” The Court gave great deference to the terms of the surrogacy contract and the stipulations by the parties therein regarding the legal status of the adults and child involved. The Court found that the child was not the “natural child” of the surrogate’s husband, based largely on statements to that effect in the surrogacy contract. Though the holding in this case did not speak directly to the legitimacy of surrogacy arrangements in South Carolina, the Court clearly assumed that such an arrangement was not contrary to state law when it showed such deference to its terms.
There is no explicit prohibition in South Carolina on lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender couples jointly adopting a child, nor is there an explicit prohibition on lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender individuals adopting the child of their same-sex partner.
[i] 274 F.Supp.2d 757 (D.S.C. 2003)