“Yes, well, in any case, I need to compare the parties’ actions against what was contractually agreed upon.”

“Isn’t the contract enforceable on its face?” said Hal.

“Hold that thought.” Mr. Bakerfield held up his index finger. “We’ll get to that, but we’ll also identify any evidence of abuse or neglect, poor judgment, or mishandling we can use in the event that we need to argue best interests of the child.”

“Best interests of the child?” I murmured, wondering what it meant in this context. Such a vague and subjective concept. How could anyone really know what was best for our child? Or anyone else’s?

“Isn’t that a custody standard?” said Hal.

“Yes. Very good,” said Mr. Bakerfield.

“He’s divorced, so we’re familiar,” I said.

“Mm-hmm.” Mr. Bakerfield looked over his glasses at us, then continued, “In the event some aspects of the surrogacy agreement are not enforceable or are deemed to be void, for example.”

“That would be outrageous, no reasonable court would deny me the . . . the benefit of our bargain,” said Hal.

“We’ll see, we’ll see, but for the sake of argument, if a court did, then we would shift our focus to prove paternity and then move for custody or, at the very minimum, visitation rights.”

“What?” I was stunned.

“All of that would also include, potentially, child support, but not in the traditional sense, because”—he chuckled—“we didn’t get here the traditional way, did we?”

“No,” I said. Hal and I were not laughing at the joke.

“All the same, the child is entitled to the benefit of support, regardless of method of conception.”

“Child support?” said Hal. “That doesn’t seem right. If we don’t get the baby, we shouldn’t have to support it.” We sat silent for a few seconds, taking in the coldness of the comment. It occurred to me, even as a non-lawyer, that this baby was just as much a child of Hal’s as were his two sons, and I was stunned by the inequality in his thinking: he would never abandon his sons like this, financially.

“Oh, I think you’ll get the baby,” said Mr. Bakerfield.

“Why do you say it like that? You sound certain,” I said.

“My initial reaction is that the act of exiting the hospital with the baby, via the window, does show, at a minimum, poor judgment and could also be construed as reckless endangerment of a child, and I would certainly argue that it was,” said Mr. Bakerfield.

“I would agree with that,” said Hal without hesitation.

“Do we know where the birth mother took the baby?” asked Mr. Bakerfield.

“Yes,” I said. “She’s in the Duluth/Superior area.”

“Do we have an address?” said Mr. Bakerfield, pen in hand.