Joined: 27 Nov 2004 {Posts: 168 } Location: Mid-Atlantic States; USA
Posted: Sat 24 Mar 2007 01:38 Post subject:
Well so far the children look happy and well loved.
They have the biggest most beautiful smiles in the
world. So that's good to see (smile). Maybe Mister
Lawyer is right in his assessment that they may
indeed be good decent loving parents. If a mixed
person calls himself or herself "Black American"
or "African American", I don't see it as "self-hatred"
toward his or her non-Black blood. But when it's
done the other way, it's very hurtful to many of
us who do claim our African mixture. I don't think
it's really so much that we're worried about if the
person does or does not hate himself or herself.
I think what may hurt us the most is our sneaking
suspicion that it may be us, and those like us whom
the person hates. And that's a hurting feeling. Yet
like all of you posting here in this thread, I too am
most concerned about the child and what messages
she'll be consciously or subconsciously subjected to.
So far, however, the wonderfully warm big smiles of
she and her sister, warm my heart. I hope Mister
Lawyer is correct in his assessment that the parents
may, in reality, be good decent folks. I'm praying he is.
EDITED: to add the picture so that if the newspaper takes it down, we'll
still have a copy to see. And yes (smile), the look happy and well loved.
With good thoughts
and humble respect;
Leo Y. "Ireland" Abdulmalik
Last edited by leosprycat on Tue 27 Mar 2007 16:18; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun 25 Mar 2007 16:47 Post subject: Re: Hold up.....
MivharMeni wrote:
Ok, now that I've had a very good look at the mother....I wonder if she has ever taken a look in the mirror. *hint hint*
It would be funny if they did another DNA test to check the father's haplogroup and it turns out to be that typical of caucasians.
She was a tad more African-looking than I expected. Personally, I suspect colorism is in play here because the momma, to my eyes, could resonably expect to have a child with that coloring given her own. Still, my heart goes out to them just because it would be devastating to a family who didn't plan on dealing with "outside" children. I do wonder, as others have, whether a lighter child with more European features wouldn't have even been questioned. The same devastation would be there since her biological father would still not be the man raising her.
[quote="Christina"]It would seem that the parents made a tactical error when they emphasized the color and nationality differences between themselves and the child. The sheer fact that the lab made an error, and that the child is not genetically related to her husband, should have been the major point of contention. It's certainly reasonable to want the genes of your spouse to be passed on to your child --and they presumably contracted for this. But the parents or at least their lawyer, framed this, in part racially. Perhaps, there is some monetary motive for bringing the racial aspect here. But, in the process they have engendered a backlash.
They are all still a very handsome family. I wish them a good outcome best suited to the needs of the child and the family.
Aside from the underlying colorism issues, I'm wondering how the parents can show that they've been "damaged". From what I've read, at least a part of their case has been thrown out. That being the "emotional distress/pain and suffering" claim.
Let's be real; when marrying into an African lineage, one can't always predict complexion. Yes, chances are greater that a white parent and parent of African heritage will bear a child with a complexion that's darker then one and lighter than the other. But that's not always a given. It's just as possible for a child to be born darker than the darkest of the two parents, as it is for two "Black" parents to give birth to a child that's lighter than both.
With that very real possibility, are the parents truly injured here?
On the lack of paternity and the fact that she was impregnated by a stranger instead of her husband? You bet they have a legit claim. I don't care if the guy was as White as father winter and the child came out looking like goldilocks.
On the lack of paternity and the fact that she was impregnated by a stranger instead of her husband? You bet they have a legit claim. I don't care if the guy was as White as father winter and the child came out looking like goldilocks.
I agree completely. In fact, I am horrified at the number of members here who seem to have implied that the couple should just shut up and accept the negligence of the lab that impregnated the wife with a stranger's sperm. If the fact that the kid is dark is not grounds for their complaints, then the mere fact that the kid is dark certainly does not exonerate the negligent lab.
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Tue 27 Mar 2007 12:34 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
Salsassin wrote:
On the lack of paternity and the fact that she was impregnated by a stranger instead of her husband? You bet they have a legit claim. I don't care if the guy was as White as father winter and the child came out looking like goldilocks.
I agree completely. In fact, I am horrified at the number of members here who seem to have implied that the couple should just shut up and accept the negligence of the lab that impregnated the wife with a stranger's sperm. If the fact that the kid is dark is not grounds for their complaints, then the mere fact that the kid is dark certainly does not exonerate the negligent lab.
I think that there are two separate issues here. One is that the lab was very negligent, (apparently it seems to happen a lot), and should be held accountable no matter what.
The other is that the parents seem to be presenting the argument that the damage is worsened by the child being of African heritage. The emphasis in the article is on the "white" parents and the "black" baby.
the parents seem to be presenting the argument that the damage is worsened by the child being of African heritage. The emphasis in the article is on the "white" parents and the "black" baby.
No. Read the article again. The parents and their lawyer mention the kid's skin tone only because it was what first alerted them to the negligence. The only person who rants on and on about "black" and "white" and "devastated because" is the reporter, who obviously has his/her own axe to grind. The only reason that we do not now see the family suing the journalist is because it would be very hard to prove deliberate intentional malice towards the family on the reporter's part.
On the lack of paternity and the fact that she was impregnated by a stranger instead of her husband? You bet they have a legit claim. I don't care if the guy was as White as father winter and the child came out looking like goldilocks.
I agree completely. In fact, I am horrified at the number of members here who seem to have implied that the couple should just shut up and accept the negligence of the lab that impregnated the wife with a stranger's sperm. If the fact that the kid is dark is not grounds for their complaints, then the mere fact that the kid is dark certainly does not exonerate the negligent lab.
I guess I can appreciate the parents being outraged by the lab's mistake. But ultimately, they're going to have to quantify how they've been damaged. The parents' lawyers can allege anything. Proof is something quite different. Thus, how can they prove that the child, if the clinic used the father's sperm, would have a different complexion? Different hair texture?
And I'd like to see a woman of obvious African lineage, sit in front of a jury (probably including other jurors of African lineage) and explain just how damaging it is that their child is "dark".
the parents seem to be presenting the argument that the damage is worsened by the child being of African heritage. The emphasis in the article is on the "white" parents and the "black" baby.
No. Read the article again. The parents and their lawyer mention the kid's skin tone only because it was what first alerted them to the negligence. The only person who rants on and on about "black" and "white" and "devastated because" is the reporter, who obviously has his/her own axe to grind. The only reason that we do not now see the family suing the journalist is because it would be very hard to prove deliberate intentional malice towards the family on the reporter's part.
Frank,
There seems to be two articles floating around. There is one article by Todd Venezia of the New York Post. I found this article to be very sensational in nature. Perhaps this is the one that you speak of.
But, there was another article. It was by Samuel Maull of the Associated Press. In his piece, Maull references a quote that I and perhaps others responded to.
"The judge said that the couple complain that they have been forced to raise a child who is not even the same race, nationality or color..."
While I am squarely on the side of the parents, and feel they deserve the damages that they seek, this particular comment seemed unwise. Both from a public relations standpoint as well as perhaps not in the best interest of the child. Given that there is some momentum towards destigmatizing "dark skin" (adoptions by Madonna, Angelina Jolie, and the Dominica born designer himself Oscar DeLaRenta )and their comments serve as a counterpoint to such momentum.
Oh that one is easy.
Father: I have to feed a child that is not of my lineage. It is a forced adoption. The wife isn't going to give it up because it is of her blood. The fact that he has come to terms with it and loves the child anyway, does not change the fact that it was an imposed adoption instead of what they bargained for.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 444 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Tue 27 Mar 2007 14:39 Post subject:
To second Salsassin's last comment, its really simple:
Wife wanted and paid significant $$ for a biological child with her husband, and got a child with a man she has never met.
Husband wanted and paid significant $$ for a biological child with his wife, and instead, wife was impregnated with another man's sperm. He now has a child with none of his genetic material, who won't pass on his genes.
There are damages here irrespective of race.
Quote:
And I'd like to see a woman of obvious African lineage, sit in front of a jury (probably including other jurors of African lineage) and explain just how damaging it is that their child is "dark".
I think she would be able to do it just fine, moreso if those others of "african lineage" are also caribbean hispanics, but even if they aren't. How about:
" Because my daughter doesn't look like she could be my husband's child, I feel like people are staring at us in public." "Some people now think both my kids are adopted, or that I had kids with two different men.""Even the fact that I have these thoughts makes me feel terrible, but every time I do her hair or focus on her looks, I am reminded that this doctor put another mans genetic material into my body. And I even feel guilty, because I know she's not my husbands daughter, and while I did get a daughter, my husband really didn't. He is rasing another man's child."
And I'd like to see a woman of obvious African lineage, sit in front of a jury (probably including other jurors of African lineage) and explain just how damaging it is that their child is "dark".
I think she would be able to do it just fine, moreso if those others of "african lineage" are also caribbean hispanics, but even if they aren't. How about:
" Because my daughter doesn't look like she could be my husband's child, I feel like people are staring at us in public." "Some people now think both my kids are adopted, or that I had kids with two different men.""Even the fact that I have these thoughts makes me feel terrible, but every time I do her hair or focus on her looks, I am reminded that this doctor put another mans genetic material into my body. And I even feel guilty, because I know she's not my husbands daughter, and while I did get a daughter, my husband really didn't. He is rasing another man's child."
Would that work?
It might work on The View or Oprah or Regis and Kelly, but when it comes to quantifying damages, the best they can hope for is a cold-handed refund. The judge in the case has already ruled that their emotional distress or pain/suffering claims just won't fly.
So even if they get a jury packed with Puerto Ricans and Dominicans who still subscribe to the "lighter is better" culture, they can't give the couple anything other than their money back.
Instead of taking a chance on swimming in the Black gene pool, these people should have just went to a human cloning clinic somewhere.
Joined: 13 Mar 2007 {Posts: 261 } Location: Canada
Posted: Tue 27 Mar 2007 15:38 Post subject:
I'm sure there have been a lot more IVF mistakes that go un-noticed.
In 2002 a Euro-couple in England gave birth to twins with African heritage because of a sperm mix-up. This is how they worked out this very complicated situation:
Quote:
Couple speak out about IVF mistake
Dr Kirsty Horsey, Progress Educational Trust
09 June 2006
[BioNews, London] A British couple have spoken to the press about the 'nightmare' they have gone through since a mistake was made during treatment they received at a Leeds fertility clinic six years ago. This is the first time the couple have spoken publicly about their situation, despite widespread press attention surrounding a number of court cases a few years ago. The couple - who are both white - underwent IVF with ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) at an assisted reproduction unit in the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, which resulted in the birth of mixed-race twins after the wrong man's sperm was used.
The couple say that the twins, now six years old, have already asked their parents questions about why their skin colour differs. Experts have warned the couple that the issue raised by the children and others might become even more difficult as they get older, and that there could be long-term psychological effects on the children. The couple - who are only known as Mr and Mrs A - said that their joy at having successfully had children following treatment was mixed with anguish because of the mistake. Mrs A said that the distress at learning of the mistake made her 'physically sick'. 'The thought that I'd had children with a stranger felt like a violation in itself', she said, adding 'all we wanted was a family. Instead we were landed with a nightmare that will last forever'. Mr A said that the strain had threatened the couple's marriage. 'Many men in my position would have walked away' he said, adding that his wife was 'scared I would reject the twins and her. But that never entered my mind'.
In March 2003, a senior High Court judge ruled that the biological father is the legal father of the twins, rather than the man - Mr A - who is bringing them up. In 2002, genetic tests had established that Mrs A was the twins' genetic mother. However, during IVF treatment, her eggs had been fertilised with the sperm of 'Mr B', a man from another couple undergoing fertility treatment on the same day. Dame Butler-Sloss was asked to decide which man was the legal father of the children. The legal argument centred on whether Mr A gave his consent to the treatment. Under section 28 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, social fathers can be recognised as the legal father of children born to their wives or partners following artificial insemination, unless they did not give consent. The court held in this case that Mr A had not consented to the use of Mr B's sperm, only his own.
The decision meant that Mr A would have to adopt the children if he wanted to become their legal parent - this has since been done. However, the court also declared that Mr and Mrs A must send Mr B twice-yearly reports on the children including school reports, letters about their lives and photographs. The couple has also since moved house so that the children can attend a school where there are children from different cultural backgrounds. 'At the moment our children are happy and well balanced', said Mrs A, adding that the couple has 'been warned by experts that as they grow up their colour and parenthood will become an issue and they may react badly'. In a statement, a spokesman for Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust said that 'from the beginning the trust has apologised unreservedly, both in person to the families concerned and formally through our respective legal representatives'. He added: 'We recognise the distress caused to both families by this error'.
In 2004, the UK's Department of Health published a report of an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding a number of IVF mix-ups, including the one involving Mr and Mrs A. Sir Liam Donaldson, the Chief Medical Officer, commissioned Professor Brian Toft, in July 2002, to investigate the circumstances surrounding the sperm mix-up and three other adverse events that occurred at assisted reproduction units in the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Professor Toft found that a mixture of human error, poor management and systems failures caused the adverse events. His report, which made more than 100 recommendations for change, heavily criticised fertility services, the government and the body - the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) - that licenses and regulates the provision of fertility services in the UK.
It might work on The View or Oprah or Regis and Kelly, but when it comes to quantifying damages, the best they can hope for is a cold-handed refund. The judge in the case has already ruled that their emotional distress or pain/suffering claims just won't fly.
Not true. When there is a violation of a contract, there is still the concept that you must put the person back in the position they were before the contract or pay damages. They still have a child that is adoptive to one parent. That is something they did not bargain for in the contract.
Frank has made me wonder what the words of the couple were. Did they really make a big deal that she was darker than them, or was it that she was darker than them that made them suspicious of her parentage? Unless he had ancestry he did not know about, the chances that the child would come out darker than the mom are next to nil. It would have to be unknown ancestry as I suspect the South African case was or a skin disorder or syndrome. Any direct quotes on what they said exactly in the NY newspapers?
No. Read the article again. The parents and their lawyer mention the kid's skin tone only because it was what first alerted them to the negligence. The only person who rants on and on about "black" and "white" and "devastated because" is the reporter, who obviously has his/her own axe to grind. The only reason that we do not now see the family suing the journalist is because it would be very hard to prove deliberate intentional malice towards the family on the reporter's part.
The other article has quotes from the couple that were in the affidavit. The arguments about race and color, are not made up by the reporter.
Quote:
“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,”
“We are conscious of and distressed by this mistake each and every time we appear in public,” the judge quoted the affidavit from the Andrews as saying.
Quote:
"The judge said the couple complain that they have been forced to raise a child who is “not even the same race, nationality, colour ... as they are.”
Quote:
The mother was born in the Dominican Republic “and has a complexion, skin coloration and facial characteristics typical of that region"
^^ They feel they have been forced to raise a child thats not the same race as them, and are distressed to appear in public with her because of her appearance.
Not true. When there is a violation of a contract, there is still the concept that you must put the person back in the position they were before the contract or pay damages. They still have a child that is adoptive to one parent. That is something they did not bargain for in the contract.
Depending on the contract, you're right; if there's a breach--and I think that there might have been a pre-trial ruling of liability--the parents may be entitled to be made whole. Now, prior to the breach of the contract, they had only one child, and were hoping for a second. Obviously (I hope) they don't want to go back to one child. What's left is recissionary damages: the amount of money they're out-of-pocket because of the services. Basically, a refund check.
As to the idea of forced adoption by the father, I disagree. Technically, he has the choice of not adopting. Obviously, it's not a choice that any man with a heart and soul would make, but it's a choice nonetheless. And the law would recognize it as such.
Unless the parents can find an appeals court to find that they're entitled to punitive damages for pain and suffering, they'll likely get a refund for the procedure and will have to live with everything else.
Salsassin wrote:
Frank has made me wonder what the words of the couple were. Did they really make a big deal that she was darker than them, or was it that she was darker than them that made them suspicious of her parentage? Unless he had ancestry he did not know about, the chances that the child would come out darker than the mom are next to nil. It would have to be unknown ancestry as I suspect the South African case was or a skin disorder or syndrome. Any direct quotes on what they said exactly in the NY newspapers?
I wholeheartedly disagree. Unless the mom was from the Sudan, and the dad was a 9th generation Scandinavian, the chances are good that a child of theirs could range from barely lighter than dad to slightly darker than mom. Is it so inconceivable that Dominicans can have resussive genes, too?
All of my kids are biracial. My oldest daughter--who's mother is Latina--has "Black" hair. My oldest son is almost his [white] mom's complexion and sports a curly blonde Afro. My youngest son has straight hair and looks either Latino/White or Asian/White. And my youngest daughter looks like everyone combined. I'm talking wide variations--in one family!
In America in 2007, there's just no way to quantify light complexion and fair-textured hair (or the lack thereof). And if the parents want more than just a refund, that's exactly what they'd be trying to do.
Unless he had ancestry he did not know about, the chances that the child would come out darker than the mom are next to nil.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Unless the mom was from the Sudan, and the dad was a 9th generation Scandinavian, the chances are good that a child of theirs could range from barely lighter than dad to slightly darker than mom.
I would lean towards RonnieB. Everyone has ancestry that they do not know about, and there can be a great range of "racialized" features among siblings. To me the central point is that three paternity tests have conclusively shown that the child is not his.
Unless he had ancestry he did not know about, the chances that the child would come out darker than the mom are next to nil.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Unless the mom was from the Sudan, and the dad was a 9th generation Scandinavian, the chances are good that a child of theirs could range from barely lighter than dad to slightly darker than mom.
I would lean towards RonnieB. Everyone has ancestry that they do not know about, and there can be a great range of "racialized" features among siblings. To me the central point is that three paternity tests have conclusively shown that the child is not his.
Could you show it in Punnet square form? I did state he would have to have unknown (and recent ancestry such that he would have genes to combine for a baby darker than both him and his wife. (Albeit in that picture the baby looks almost the same complexion (Don't know the mother's color in the nether regions).
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
