Surrogacy in Kansas: What the Law Actually Says (2026)

Kansas has no surrogacy statute — and unlike most states without one, it is not neutral. Three things stack against a surrogacy arrangement here.

• ⛔ Two adverse Attorney General opinions. AG Op. 82-150 (2 July 1982): "a contract which determines the custody of a child is void as against public policy." AG Op. 96-73 (11 Sept. 1996): a surrogate fee "is not the type of professional service contemplated by K.S.A. 59-2121."
• ⛔ A criminal payment statute. K.S.A. 59-2121 limits consideration "in connection with an adoption, or a placement for adoption" to six listed categories, and knowingly receiving clearly excessive fees is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.
• ⛔ Motherhood follows birth. K.S.A. 23-2207(a): "the mother may be established by proof of her having given birth to the child." § 23-2220 does allow any interested party to seek a determination of the nonexistence of a mother and child relationship — but no Kansas court has been shown to use it for a gestational carrier, and nothing addresses the agreement behind it.

⚠️ Now the other side, stated just as plainly, because it matters.

Neither AG opinion is law. An Attorney General's opinion is advisory. We located no published Kansas appellate decision ruling on surrogacy — not once, in either direction. And both opinions were written on traditional surrogacy facts completed by a stepparent adoption, which is what pulled the adoption statute in at all.

⭐ AG Op. 82-150 says why it reached its conclusion, and the reason still holds: artificial insemination "has been legitimated by the legislature," but "such is not the case with the proposed commercialization of motherhood, and in the absence of a legislative declaration legitimating such practice, we are constrained to consider this matter in the light of existing public policy." Kansas has passed no such declaration since.

⛔ Ivy does not match surrogates or intended parents in Kansas. This page exists so you can see the authorities and their limits, not to start a journey here.

Kansas has no surrogacy statute and no surrogacy case law. What it has is two Attorney General opinions, a criminal adoption-payment statute, and a parentage rule that starts from birth.

AG Opinion 82-150 — the source of "Kansas voids surrogacy contracts"

Requested by a Johnson County associate district judge and issued 2 July 1982, on a specific proposal: a for-profit Kansas corporation would "locate and thereafter contract with single women to serve as surrogate mothers on an independent contractor basis," arrange artificial insemination by the intended father, and the child would then be adopted by the father's wife — with the corporation as "the paid intermediary … and a party to the contracts."

Synopsis, in full: "A contract which determines the custody of a child is void as against public policy."

The reasoning rests on Kansas custody cases running back to 1881: "children are not chattel and therefore may not be the subject of a contract or gift," and "custody of a minor child is simply not a matter to be determined by contract."

⭐ It anticipated the obvious counter-argument and rejected it:

"We recognize that the commercial activity contemplated here might be characterized as a 'contract for services' rather than a contract to determine custody of a child. However, we cannot escape the fact that custody of the minor child is decided as a contractual matter between the parties thereto."

⭐ And it explained what would change the answer:

"K.S.A. 23-128 to 23-130 specifically authorize the 'commercial' use of the male's reproductive system by artificial insemination. However, this artificial insemination process has been legitimated by the legislature as a matter of public policy. Such is not the case with the proposed commercialization of motherhood, and in the absence of a legislative declaration legitimating such practice, we are constrained to consider this matter in the light of existing public policy."

⚠️ Kansas has enacted no such declaration in the 44 years since.

AG Opinion 96-73 — the payment question

Issued 11 September 1996 at the request of the Johnson County District Attorney, on facts involving "compensation to a surrogate mother who agreed to be artificially inseminated by the father, carried the child to term and then relinquished the child to the father's wife in a stepparent adoption proceeding."

Holding: "bearing a child for someone else is not the type of professional service contemplated by K.S.A. 59-2121" — because a professional service involves skill "predominantly mental or intellectual rather than physical or manual," and surrogacy "does not fit comfortably into this definition."

⭐ The sentence most summaries omit: "We note that the statute does allow a fee for the reasonable living expenses of the birth mother during the pregnancy, but an additional service fee for bearing a child for another is not within the purview of this statute."

⛔ What neither opinion says. Neither says surrogacy agreements are illegal, criminal, or void in every form; neither addresses gestational carriers, parentage orders or birth certificates; and neither is binding on any court.

K.S.A. 59-2121 — where the criminal exposure actually is

The statute restricts consideration "in connection with an adoption, or a placement for adoption" to six categories: reasonable legal and other professional fees; licensed child-placing agency fees; actual and necessary expenses incident to placement or the proceeding; actual medical expenses of the mother; actual medical expenses of the child; and reasonable living expenses of the mother incurred during or as a result of the pregnancy.

"(c) Knowingly and intentionally receiving or accepting clearly excessive fees or expenses in violation of subsection (a) shall be a severity level 9, nonperson felony."

⛔ And AG Op. 96-73 quotes the case that sharpens it: State v. Clark, 16 Kan. App. 2d 552 (1992) — "the current statute criminalizes the receipt of any consideration not meeting one of the six exceptions and, even if one of the exceptions applies, receipt is prohibited if the amount is unreasonable."

⚠️ Note the trigger, though. § 59-2121 applies to consideration "in connection with an adoption, or a placement for adoption." A gestational arrangement that ends in a parentage order rather than an adoption may not engage it — but no Kansas statute, opinion or decision addresses that, and the section's last amendment was 2018.

Parentage — and why Kansas is structurally different

K.S.A. 23-2207: "The parent and child relationship between a child and: (a) The mother may be established by proof of her having given birth to the child or under this act."

⭐ But Kansas has the maternity action too, and this page previously said it did not. K.S.A. 23-2220, in full: "Any interested party may bring an action to determine the existence or nonexistence of a mother and child relationship. Insofar as practicable, the provisions of this act applicable to the father and child relationship apply." That is the same mechanism Montana and Hawaii rely on. § 23-2214 makes it a civil action, and § 23-2215(a)–(b) makes the judgment "determinative for all purposes" and directs that a new birth certificate be issued where the judgment is at variance with the existing one.

⛔ What that does and does not change. It means Kansas is not a state without a parentage mechanism — the machinery exists. ⚠️ What remains true, and is why Ivy still does not match here, is everything else: no surrogacy statute, no surrogacy case law, AG Op. 82-150 holding that a contract determining custody is void as against public policy, and a criminal adoption-payment statute with a severity level 9 felony. No published Kansas appellate decision has been located using § 23-2220 in a gestational carrier case, and nothing addresses the enforceability of the agreement that would sit behind it. The rest of the Act — presumptions in § 23-2208, parties in § 23-2211 — is paternity-oriented.

K.S.A. 23-2301 and 23-2302, unamended since 1968, legitimate artificial insemination and the resulting child — but only "at the request and with the consent in writing of the husband and wife." ⚠️ Artificial insemination only, married couples only. Nothing about IVF, egg donation or a gestational carrier.

Case law

No surrogacy decision. A search of Kansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals decisions returns zero uses of "surrogacy," "surrogate mother" or "gestational carrier." ⚠️ That is not the same as no relevant case law — see Frazier below. The decisions citing § 59-2121 are adoption-payment cases — State v. Brown (2001) and In re Adoption of Baby Boy M. (2001).

⚠️ We located no published Kansas appellate decision adopting, applying or rejecting either AG opinion, and none has decided a gestational carrier case.

⭐ But Kansas appellate law is not silent on the two propositions the opinions rest on. Frazier v. Goudschaal, 296 Kan. 730 (2013) — a same-sex coparenting dispute over children conceived by artificial insemination, not a surrogacy case — holds in its syllabus:

"A court may exercise its jurisdiction over a contractual dispute in order to evaluate the contract's legality. Contracts are presumed legal, and the burden rests on the party challenging the contract to prove it is illegal."

"Under the Kansas Parentage Act (KPA), any interested party may bring an action to determine the existence or nonexistence of a mother and child relationship. K.S.A. 38-1126." (That section carries the same text now codified at § 23-2220.)

In re W.L. and G.L. (Kan. Ct. App. 2019) is another assisted-reproduction parentage case citing § 23-2220, though the petition there failed on the facts.

⚠️ Neither is a surrogacy decision and neither should be read as one. What they show is that the maternity action is real and used, and that a Kansas court evaluating a contract starts from a presumption of legality — which is a different starting point from a 1982 advisory opinion, and a reason to treat that opinion as historical rather than settled.

General information, not legal advice. Kansas is the most adverse state in our research, and nothing here substitutes for a licensed Kansas attorney.

⚠️ A 2025 amendment nobody has applied yet

K.S.A. 23-2205(b), added by L. 2025, ch. 112, § 2, effective 1 July 2025: "For purposes of this section, the term 'child' includes any unborn child as defined in K.S.A. 23-3001."

⚠️ This does not create a surrogacy pre-birth-order procedure, and its reach is limited on its face to "this section." ⛔ But it does make a flat "no pre-birth order is possible in Kansas" unsafe to write. We located no published appellate decision applying it to a gestational carrier. It is a question for Kansas counsel, and it is new enough that most secondary sources predate it.

⛔ Ivy does not match intended parents with surrogates in Kansas. That is a decision about where we will place a journey, not a legal conclusion about your situation — but here is the reasoning, so you can weigh it with your own attorney.

What makes Kansas different from a quiet silent state:

• The Attorney General has said a contract determining a child's custody is void as against public policy, and that a commercial surrogacy arrangement is such a contract however it is labeled (AG Op. 82-150).
• The adoption-payment statute is criminal, and the case law it rests on treats anything outside its six categories as clearly excessive (K.S.A. 59-2121(c)).
• K.S.A. 23-2207(a) makes the woman who gives birth the mother. ⚠️ § 23-2220 does supply an action to change that — any interested party may seek a determination of the existence or nonexistence of a mother and child relationship — but no Kansas court has been shown to use it for a gestational carrier.

⚠️ And the honest counterweight. AG opinions are advisory, both were written on traditional surrogacy completed by an adoption, and we located no published Kansas appellate decision ruling on surrogacy. A gestational arrangement that never becomes an adoption is not what either opinion examined. That is a real argument — it is simply not one that has ever been tested.

⭐ Living in Kansas does not necessarily prevent an out-of-state journey. Intended parents routinely match with surrogates in other states, and the surrogate's residence and delivery state are central. ⚠️ But your own residence is not irrelevant — have counsel in the relevant states confirm jurisdiction, parentage and recognition before you proceed.

⚠️ If you are already in a Kansas arrangement, do not take this page as a verdict on it. Take it to a Kansas attorney, with the two AG opinions in hand.

Read intended parents, or contact us and we will tell you honestly where we can and cannot help.

Ivy does not place journeys in Kansas, so there is no Kansas price to quote. For context, an Ivy journey in a state where we do match costs $140,000–$150,000 where embryos already exist, $180,000–$190,000 with IVF, and $210,000–$220,000+ with IVF and egg donation.

⚠️ In Kansas the money question is not about budget — it is about a criminal statute. K.S.A. 59-2121 permits only six categories of consideration "in connection with an adoption, or a placement for adoption," and makes knowingly receiving clearly excessive fees a severity level 9, nonperson felony. AG Op. 96-73 concluded a surrogate fee is not one of the six.

⭐ One thing the same opinion confirms is permitted: "a fee for the reasonable living expenses of the birth mother during the pregnancy." That is category (6) of the statute, and the Attorney General said so expressly.

⚠️ And the limit on all of it: § 59-2121 is triggered by an adoption or a placement for adoption. Whether it reaches a gestational arrangement that ends in something else has never been addressed by any Kansas statute, opinion or decision.

If you need a Kansas birth record for any reason, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment charges $20 per certified copy, with a $15 expedited service fee on internet and credit-card orders. ⚠️ By statute the first $20 is a five-year record search fee — if no record is found, the fee is retained.

Contact us for a written estimate in a state where we can actually place your journey.

⛔ There is no Kansas surrogacy process to describe. Ivy does not place journeys here, and the state supplies none of the machinery a journey runs on.

What is missing, specifically:

1. ⚠️ A parentage action exists; what is missing is everything around it. K.S.A. 23-2220 lets any interested party seek a determination of the existence or nonexistence of a mother and child relationship, and § 23-2215(b) directs a new birth certificate where the judgment differs from the existing one. ⛔ But K.S.A. 23-2207(a) still makes the woman who gave birth the mother, no Kansas court has been shown to use § 23-2220 for a gestational carrier, and AG Op. 82-150 treats a contract determining custody as void against public policy. Ivy does not match in Kansas.
2. ⛔ No statutory framework for the agreement. No eligibility rules, no required terms, no enforceability provision — and an Attorney General's opinion saying a custody-determining contract is void as against public policy.
3. ⛔ No settled path for compensation. K.S.A. 59-2121 permits six categories of consideration in connection with an adoption; subsection (c) makes knowingly and intentionally receiving or accepting clearly excessive fees a severity level 9, nonperson felony. AG Op. 96-73 put a surrogate service fee outside the six, on traditional-surrogacy-plus-adoption facts.
4. ⛔ No reported practice. The sources reviewed disclose no Kansas surrogacy case law and no statewide practitioner survey, so they do not establish a consistent court or hospital practice.

⚠️ What would have to change. AG Op. 82-150 answered its own question: artificial insemination is lawful because "legitimated by the legislature," while surrogacy is not, "in the absence of a legislative declaration legitimating such practice." A Kansas surrogacy statute would change this page. Nothing else reliably would — not a well-drafted contract, and not an out-of-state agency's assurances.

⭐ What people in Kansas actually do instead. Intended parents who live in Kansas commonly match with surrogates in states that have a working framework, because the governing law generally follows where the surrogate lives and delivers. That route is ordinary and Ivy supports it.

Contact us and we will tell you which states fit your situation.

⛔ Ivy does not accept surrogate applications from Kansas residents. We would rather tell you that plainly than take an application we cannot place.

Here is what sits behind that, because you deserve the reasoning and not just the answer.

⛔ Kansas law would treat you as the mother. K.S.A. 23-2207(a): "the mother may be established by proof of her having given birth to the child." Kansas has no procedure — no pre-birth order, no post-birth order, nothing — to change that. Every state where surrogacy works smoothly has one.

⛔ An Attorney General's opinion casts doubt on the agreement. In AG Op. 82-150 — advisory, and on traditional surrogacy followed by a stepparent adoption — the Attorney General concluded that a contract determining a child's custody is "void as against public policy." ⚠️ We located no published Kansas appellate decision applying that reasoning to a gestational carrier agreement. But if one did, the agreement might not be enforceable — and an unenforceable agreement protects you least of all.

⛔ And the payment question carries a criminal penalty. K.S.A. 59-2121(c) makes knowingly receiving clearly excessive fees a severity level 9, nonperson felony, and AG Op. 96-73 concluded a surrogate fee is not one of the six permitted categories. ⚠️ That exposure falls on the person receiving the money.

⚠️ The limits of all that, stated fairly. AG opinions are advisory, not binding. We located no published Kansas appellate decision ruling on surrogacy. Both opinions were written on traditional surrogacy that ended in an adoption, not on a modern gestational arrangement. ⭐ And AG Op. 96-73 confirms the statute does allow "a fee for the reasonable living expenses of the birth mother during the pregnancy."

⭐ What this does not mean. It does not mean you can never be a surrogate. Ivy declines Kansas-resident applications because Kansas has no tested parentage mechanism and presents the risks above — and a Kansas attorney, not an agency, is who should evaluate your own circumstances.

If you move, or if you are already a resident of another state, we would be glad to hear from you: the application takes about ten minutes.

⛔ Kansas residency is, on its own, the reason Ivy cannot accept an application here. No screening criterion changes that, so the list below is context rather than a checklist to measure yourself against.

No Kansas statute sets requirements for a surrogate. There is no minimum age, no prior-birth rule, no evaluation requirement and no residency condition — because there is no surrogacy statute at all. What Kansas has instead is K.S.A. 23-2207(a), which makes the woman who gives birth the mother, and no procedure to change it.

For reference, what Ivy asks in states where we do match:

• 20–36 years old at application
• At least one healthy full-term pregnancy, and currently raising that child
• BMI 32 or under
• No more than 2 C-sections and no more than 5 total deliveries — Ivy and IVF clinic screening criteria, not state law
• No smoking, vaping or THC for 6+ months, clinic-verified
• Financially stable and not receiving public assistance
• U.S. citizen or permanent resident, with a stable living situation

⚠️ One Kansas-specific note that is easy to miss. K.S.A. 23-2301 and 23-2302, unamended since 1968, legitimate artificial insemination and the resulting child — but only at the written request of a husband and wife. They say nothing about IVF or gestational carriers, so they do not supply a modern gestational-surrogacy framework.

⭐ If you live near a state line, your address is what matters, not your metro. The Kansas City area spans two states with different law. Your address is relevant, but it does not by itself decide every legal issue — the planned delivery location and other jurisdictional facts may also matter. Confirm it with an attorney before you assume either way.

If you are outside Kansas, the application takes about ten minutes and we will tell you honestly whether we can help.

⛔ Ivy does not accept surrogate applications from Kansas residents, so there is no Kansas compensation package to describe. For reference, base compensation for a first-time Ivy surrogate in a state where we do match is $40,000, rising to $45,000–$50,000 for a second journey and $55,000–$60,000 for a third or more.

The reason Kansas is different is a criminal statute, not a number.

⛔ K.S.A. 59-2121 allows only six categories of consideration in connection with an adoption or a placement for adoption. (c) makes knowingly and intentionally receiving clearly excessive fees a severity level 9, nonperson felony — and the exposure falls on the person receiving the money.

⛔ AG Op. 96-73 put a surrogate fee outside those six categories: "bearing a child for someone else is not the type of professional service contemplated by K.S.A. 59-2121." ⚠️ Read with State v. Clark, which the opinion quotes — anything outside the six exceptions is treated as clearly excessive — that is a serious position to be in.

⭐ What the same opinion says is allowed: "a fee for the reasonable living expenses of the birth mother during the pregnancy." Living expenses are category (6); a service fee for carrying the child is not.

⚠️ The limits, stated fairly. The opinion is advisory, not binding; it was written on traditional surrogacy that ended in a stepparent adoption; and no Kansas court has ever applied it. Whether § 59-2121 reaches a gestational arrangement that never becomes an adoption is genuinely unresolved.

⛔ None of that is a margin we will ask a surrogate to stand on. If you live in another state, or move to one, we would be glad to talk — see the compensation page for how packages are built.

We verify clinic entries against each practice's own website rather than from a directory. For Kansas, that produces a short and deliberately narrow list — and none of it is a surrogacy referral, since Ivy does not place journeys here.

• The Center for Reproductive Medicine — Wichita. Its own site confirms a Wichita fertility practice offering in vitro fertilization.
• The University of Kansas Health System — its own treatment page confirms in vitro fertilization, with care in the Overland Park area.

⚠️ No Kansas practice confirmed a gestational carrier service line at a verified Kansas address on 19 August 2026, so none is claimed here. Ask any practice directly whether it takes carrier cycles and where those cycles are performed.

⛔ The state-line problem is real, and it is easy to get wrong. Several well-known practices marketed as "Kansas City" fertility clinics are in Missouri, which is a separate legal jurisdiction with its own rules. Confirm the physical address of any clinic before assuming Kansas law applies — and note that the law governing a surrogacy arrangement generally follows the surrogate's residence and place of delivery, not the clinic's.

These listings are informational, not endorsements, and not a complete list. A clinic's willingness to perform a transfer says nothing about whether the resulting parentage will be recognized — in Kansas those are two very different questions.

Statutes: K.S.A. 59-2121 (payment for adoption; six permitted categories; severity level 9 nonperson felony for knowingly receiving clearly excessive fees; last amended 2018). K.S.A. 23-2207 (parent and child relationship; mother established by proof of having given birth). K.S.A. 23-2301 and 23-2302 (artificial insemination; husband and wife; unamended since 1968).

Attorney General opinions — advisory, not binding: 82-150 (2 July 1982) — "a contract which determines the custody of a child is void as against public policy." 96-73 (11 Sept. 1996) — a surrogate fee is not a "professional service" under K.S.A. 59-2121. ⚠️ Opinions issued before 2023 are hosted by Washburn Law School, not on the Attorney General's own site.

Case law: ⚠️ no Kansas decision we located uses "surrogacy," "surrogate mother" or "gestational carrier," and neither AG opinion has ever been adopted, applied or rejected by a Kansas court. ⭐ Two assisted-reproduction parentage decisions are still relevant: Frazier v. Goudschaal, 296 Kan. 730 (2013) — contracts are presumed legal, and any interested party may bring a mother-and-child action — and In re W.L. and G.L. (Kan. Ct. App. 2019), citing § 23-2220. Neither is a surrogacy case.

Birth certificates: Kansas Office of Vital Statistics, KDHE — $20 per certified copy, plus a $15 expedited service fee on internet and credit-card orders. ⚠️ The first $20 is a five-year record search fee and is retained if no record is found.

For Chinese intended parents: Kansas falls in the consular district of the Chinese Consulate-General in Chicago, with Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Nebraska and the Dakotas.

Ivy: ⛔ we do not match in Kansas. Where we do: Illinois · Missouri · Colorado. General reading: intended parents · compensation · contact us.