Posted on 03/21/2007 8:32:11 PM PDT by Calpernia
A couple who sued a fertility clinic after the wife gave birth to a daughter whose skin they thought was too dark for her to be their child may proceed with their lawsuit, a judge has ruled.
Thomas and Nancy Andrews, of Commack, N.Y., sued New York Medical Services for Reproductive Medicine, accusing the Manhattan clinic of medical malpractice and other offenses. They said the Park Avenue clinic botched the insemination of Nancy Andrews' eggs.
The Andrewses' court papers say that on the advice of Dr. Martin Keltz, the couple agreed to in vitro fertilization of the eggs with Thomas Andrews' sperm so they could have a child who was biologically their own. However, their court papers say, the clinic was negligent and used another man's sperm.
Three DNA tests - a home kit and two professional laboratory tests - confirmed that Thomas Andrews was not the baby's father, state Supreme Court Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam quoted the couple as saying.
The judge said the Andrews' complain that they have been forced to raise a child who is "not even the same race, nationality, color ... as they are.''
The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, came to light Wednesday after the judge issued a decision that allows the Andrewses to proceed with parts of the suit while dismissing other parts.
The judge quoted the couple as saying that after their daughter, Jessica, was born Oct. 19, 2004, they knew something was wrong because of her physical appearance. The baby's skin was darker than either parent's, the judge wrote.
The mother was born in the Dominican Republic "and has a complexion, skin coloration and facial characteristics typical of that region'' while the father is Caucasian, the judge quoted the Andrewses' papers.
Nancy Andrews asked Keltz about this "abnormality,'' the judge said, and the physician told her the condition was normal, that the in vitro fertilization was done properly and that the child would "get lighter over time.''
The Andrewses say that "while we love Baby Jessica as our own, we are reminded of this terrible mistake each and every time we look at her; it is simply impossible to ignore,'' the judge's decision says.
"We are conscious of and distressed by this mistake each and every time we appear in public,'' the judge quoted the Andrewses' affidavit as saying.
The judge, in her ruling made public Wednesday, dismissed the lawsuit against Keltz, who had advised the procedure and had performed the embryo implantation.
She allowed the case to proceed against Dr. Reginald Puckett as owner of the clinic but threw out the case against him as an individual. Puckett has already been found liable for the alleged blunder.
In trying to have the lawsuit against Puckett personally and as clinic owner dismissed, his lawyer, Martin B. Adams, told the court that Puckett "did not examine, communicate with, care for or treat plaintiffs.''
The judge found Carlo Acosta, the non-physician embryologist who processed the egg and sperm for creation of an embryo, liable for the alleged blunder. She said his response to the Andrewses' claims "could not be weaker - it is nonexistent.''
The Andrewses' lawyer, Howard J. Stern, did not return a telephone call for comment Thursday.
"Was the wife cheating?
She couldn't have been cheating as the child is of a darker complexion.
wow.
how do you explain this to the wee little one when she's old enough to go back and read the stories?
They should drop the lawsuit and put the poor kid up for adoption.
What a couple of a$$es.
This reminds me of the ad for "Monk" where he's in the doctor's office and starts rearranging everything, including the blood samples so they're all even. Cut to the doctor talking to a couple obviously in their 70's. He looks at the wife first and says, "Congratulations, you're pregnant." and turns to the husband and says "And so are you." The wife looks on in horror while the husband gets this grin on his face that is hillarious.
Very funny ad...
Okay, you might want to re-think that one.
That's her story, and she's sticking to it.
These idiots do not understand the meaning of the word "nationality."
What a nightmare for the girl - getting raised by two bigots. Not even people under slavery had such creepy problems. Gives me the creeps.
This whole thing goes to show how wrong artificial insemination is as a means of giving birth. Adoption is way better. And what the hey, if artificially inseminated children can be involuntary mismatches, adoptions are always voluntary and loving no matter what the race of the child.
Poor little helpless girl - stuck with two bigots for parents.
The parents should be on their knees every night thanking GOD that they were able to have a baby. There are lots of couples who cry lots of tears and have empty arms. Selfish twits. We have two sons and one foster daughter. All three are the same in our eyes and we count each of them as a blessing. Some people just never realize how lucky they are.
Makes me wonder if that child is safe and cared for."
I get a bad feeling for the child.
Either way, not the baby's fault.
I agree that the clinic holds responsibility here. I suspect it is the non-father's ego that is pushing this along with the aspirations of getting the big bucks. But the language in their suit is unforgivable. The parents should have court-ordered psychological testing to see if they are fit parents for this innocent.
I hate when that happens.
"What a nightmare for the girl -"
The nightmare is for the "parents."
Couldn't she have discarded her before she was born? Didn't they know before her birth that something was wrong with it?
But now that she is here, the best thing to do is to give her away to a family to adopt.
dismissed parts with leave to ammend.
They can put the baby up for adoption and get a "do over"
I feel terrible for the child, she deserves unconditional love from her parents, as do all children.
HUH?! This is possibly the stupidest statement I've ever read.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Discard her before she was born?... Was she not alive in the womb? Was she not yet a human being? Was she some commodity, to be discarded if the 'fit' wasn't just right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.