Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Relapse wrote:
Two years down the road from the incident. A lot in her story does not add up.

Lawsuits are almost always preceded by informal negotiation and then arbitration, processes which can take years. Not to mention the fact that there's obviously a definite stigma and a lot of negative pressure attached to suing a place for giving you your daughter...

Either way, the lab fethed up big time and she deserves compensation for that.

And they refunded her for the mistake.
I mean, she is happy with her daughter, what is the big deal? If "Everyone Loves her" then why is there a problem?

 Kali wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Two years down the road from the incident. A lot in her story does not add up.

Lawsuits are almost always preceded by informal negotiation and then arbitration, processes which can take years. Not to mention the fact that there's obviously a definite stigma and a lot of negative pressure attached to suing a place for giving you your daughter...

Either way, the lab fethed up big time and she deserves compensation for that.

I'm not saying the lab didn't screw up, I don't know really much from the article though, except her side of the story, and it leaves many questions with the fragment we have.

 daedalus wrote:
Hahahahahaha, wow. Not touching this with a 10 foot pole. The comments will be the most delicious things I've ever lapped up though.

Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

OgreChubbs wrote:
Not the kids fault so don't get me wrong but I think this is just the problem with this type of scenario. She paid for a service was not happy and now there is a kid involved who is going to go through hell now.

At the end of the day poor kid... it always the kids who suffer when parents are donkey-caves.

wait, how exactly is the child going to go through "hell?" I may be misperceiving what you're typing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:

If the lab screwed up, they should be liable, but there are elements we aren't getting here.

Given that the lab admitted making an error I think we can safely conclude that it did, whether or not it is liable depends on the nature of contract the woman signed. Given this, I suspect the emphasis the child's race and the the desire to relocate is intended to be an appeal to emotion designed to increase the amount awarded in the event of a favorable judgment.

Agreed

Bank shot on that agreement.

 Frazzled wrote:


wait, how exactly is the child going to go through "hell?" I may be misperceiving what you're typing.

Only guessing here, but from experience of mixed race friends they mentioned not fitting in with either black or white communities as children. Children are very tribalistic more so than adults and integration is largely a dream.
Adult society can be better but that depends on the society.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And they refunded her for the mistake.
I mean, she is happy with her daughter, what is the big deal? If "Everyone Loves her" then why is there a problem?

Because breach of contract is a thing? They gave her money back for the other vials of the wrong stuff. They have done 0 to compensate her for their frell up. How hard is that to understand?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

 Kali wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Two years down the road from the incident. A lot in her story does not add up.

Lawsuits are almost always preceded by informal negotiation and then arbitration, processes which can take years. Not to mention the fact that there's obviously a definite stigma and a lot of negative pressure attached to suing a place for giving you your daughter...

Either way, the lab fethed up big time and she deserves compensation for that.

I'm not saying the lab didn't screw up, I don't know really much from the article though, except her side of the story, and it leaves many questions with the fragment we have.

Out of curiosity, what questions remain?

 streamdragon wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And they refunded her for the mistake.
I mean, she is happy with her daughter, what is the big deal? If "Everyone Loves her" then why is there a problem?

Because breach of contract is a thing? They gave her money back for the other vials of the wrong stuff. They have done 0 to compensate her for their frell up. How hard is that to understand?

And didn't even refund the actual insemination (with the wrong semen) so... not even half a point, really.


To use an analogy, if I offer to wash your windows for $10, and then I accidentally smash some of them through incompetence, would you be OK if I agreed to give you a $5 refund, HSM?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Hordini wrote:


What is it with people's obsession for others to look like them? I've been hearing this more and more lately. It's fething psychotic.

It is a perfectly natural sentiment to want to breed within your own ethnic group.
It's alarming that some people would want to write that off as a mental illness or racism.

We don't know that at all. Most people "breed" within their own ethnic group because that is the most easily available choice.

The wider availability of choice in the modern world is being matched in many cases -- the UK is a leader -- by increased numbers of what I will term mixed marriages and "haafu" (to borrow a Japanese term) children.

 streamdragon wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
And they refunded her for the mistake.
I mean, she is happy with her daughter, what is the big deal? If "Everyone Loves her" then why is there a problem?

Because breach of contract is a thing? They gave her money back for the other vials of the wrong stuff. They have done 0 to compensate her for their frell up. How hard is that to understand?

It's okay though, because a cock-up of this magnitude is obviously of the same level as getting anchovies on your pizza when you ordered pepperoni, so they should be okay with a simple refund.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We don't know that at all. Most people "breed" within their own ethnic group because that is the most easily available choice.

Statistics seem to disagree with you: OkCupid owner compiled data across dating sites suggesting the most important factor in attraction by far is race/ethnicity, despite responses from users indicating that they did not believe race was a significant factor.

I think they have a perfectly legitimate grievance. They selected donor a, the clinic messed up and gave them the sperm of donor b.

The race aspect of this case is a massive red herring. It's not about the baby being black (though that did make it easy to identity that an error had been made) it's that the clinic was grossly negligent. How many other times have they done this and it's gone unnoticed because the wrong donor was the same race as the right one?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Hordini wrote:


What is it with people's obsession for others to look like them? I've been hearing this more and more lately. It's fething psychotic.

It is a perfectly natural sentiment to want to breed within your own ethnic group.
It's alarming that some people would want to write that off as a mental illness or racism.

If you read her her quote and the rest of my post, it's not about breeding, as you put it, it's about raising.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Hordini wrote:


What is it with people's obsession for others to look like them? I've been hearing this more and more lately. It's fething psychotic.

It is a perfectly natural sentiment to want to breed within your own ethnic group.
It's alarming that some people would want to write that off as a mental illness or racism.

We don't know that at all. Most people "breed" within their own ethnic group because that is the most easily available choice.

The wider availability of choice in the modern world is being matched in many cases -- the UK is a leader -- by increased numbers of what I will term mixed marriages and "haafu" (to borrow a Japanese term) children.

Number of mixed race children is 2.9% of the total. However the UK has 13% ethnic population. Thus the majority stick within their own racial group, this includes ethnic population as well as white. Approx 90% choose a partner of same racial group.
This number is a growth rend but is nevertheless a minority.
Also there is nothing wrong in wanting to prefer a partner of the same racial background, it is not discrimination or racism.

I really, really wanted this to be what the buzzwords suggested it'd be.

 Kali wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We don't know that at all. Most people "breed" within their own ethnic group because that is the most easily available choice.

Statistics seem to disagree with you: OkCupid owner compiled data across dating sites suggesting the most important factor in attraction by far is race/ethnicity, despite responses from users indicating that they did not believe race was a significant factor.

I am sure the methodology of the study was first rate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Hordini wrote:


What is it with people's obsession for others to look like them? I've been hearing this more and more lately. It's fething psychotic.

It is a perfectly natural sentiment to want to breed within your own ethnic group.
It's alarming that some people would want to write that off as a mental illness or racism.

We don't know that at all. Most people "breed" within their own ethnic group because that is the most easily available choice.

The wider availability of choice in the modern world is being matched in many cases -- the UK is a leader -- by increased numbers of what I will term mixed marriages and "haafu" (to borrow a Japanese term) children.

Number of mixed race children is 2.9% of the total. However the UK has 13% ethnic population. Thus the majority stick within their own racial group, this includes ethnic population as well as white. Approx 90% choose a partner of same racial group.
This number is a growth rend but is nevertheless a minority.
Also there is nothing wrong in wanting to prefer a partner of the same racial background, it is not discrimination or racism.

You can only have a mixed race baby from an ethnic minority parent. The proportion of mixed race babies is 2.9 / 13 = 22% chance of an ethnic minority parent having a mixed baby. This suggests that 1 in 5 marriages of ethnic minority people are outside their racial group.

Whilst a minority it is a significant proportion and is known to be growing. It is also known that the ethnic diversity of the UK has been growing. These trends are certainly linked.

If you live in the sort of town that reacts negatively to a mixed race child I assume that having same-sex parents doesn't lend itself to an easy ride. Even if the child were white, they'd always be that one with the gay parents.

Still the clinc screwed up badly, they still mixed up samples and I seminars soneone with the wrong one. There's a significant grievance there. I'm surprised that such a process can go wrong because someone misreads the handwriting on a request. Surely there would be more checks in place than that?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am sure the methodology of the study was first rate.

Well yeah it's as solid as that sort of research gets, but if you have specific grievances with it I'll respond to them as best I can. It's not like these results are unexpected.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
If you live in the sort of town that reacts negatively to a mixed race child I assume that having same-sex parents doesn't lend itself to an easy ride. Even if the child were white, they'd always be that one with the gay parents.

Still the clinc screwed up badly, they still mixed up samples and I seminars soneone with the wrong one. There's a significant grievance there. I'm surprised that such a process can go wrong because someone misreads the handwriting on a request. Surely there would be more checks in place than that?

That was the thing that had me from the first. They'd apparently been living in this town from before they had the baby and for two years after that. There was no complaint about people being down on them for being a same sex couple, either in the town or from their family. Now, all of a sudden, they are hearing things about their bi racial baby? Something isn't adding up here. True, the clinic is at fault and owes them something, but I think Dogma called it right in his post. They are playing angles to get a bigger settlement.

And if that's the case - good for them. A screwup of this magnitude deserves to be punished harshly by a jury.

A lot of times a suit is used to impose financial burden on a company/party as an incentive for them not to repeat the same mistakes in the future. Just refunding the person the money they paid often isn't enough of to cause them to rethink their policies or procedures.

For example if a customer buys a hamburger at a fast food place and they get sick from it the food places simply refunds their $5 and carries on as usual. Not if that same customer gets sick and instead ends up incurring the costs of a hospital stay and then sues the fast food place for thousands of dollars in damages it's far more likely to prompt a change in how that places handles the food in the future.


Simply because the sperm bank refunded their payment doesn't fix the fact that a massive mistake was made, a child isn't something you can just exchange when it comes out different then expected. Children are both a massive expense and investment of time and care, so the criteria of who you want to father/mother your child is usually pretty damn important and that got fethed up. Rather than going and shacking up with random Joe Blow they specifically go to these facilities and pay a lot of money because they are expecting the donors to be screened and have accurate information presented to them so they can make the best selection and pairing based on what they desire in their future children and that trust was violated by their incompetence.

It has a huge and permanent impact on the lives of the parents as well as the life of their child which is why it runs so much deeper then just getting a simple refund.

Relapse wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
If you live in the sort of town that reacts negatively to a mixed race child I assume that having same-sex parents doesn't lend itself to an easy ride. Even if the child were white, they'd always be that one with the gay parents.

Still the clinc screwed up badly, they still mixed up samples and I seminars soneone with the wrong one. There's a significant grievance there. I'm surprised that such a process can go wrong because someone misreads the handwriting on a request. Surely there would be more checks in place than that?

That was the thing that had me from the first. They'd apparently been living in this town from before they had the baby and for two years after that. There was no complaint about people being down on them for being a same sex couple, either in the town or from their family. Now, all of a sudden, they are hearing things about their bi racial baby? Something isn't adding up here. True, the clinic is at fault and owes them something, but I think Dogma called it right in his post. They are playing angles to get a bigger settlement.

Indeed. Thats why I think the claim is BS.

I think if people didn't have an issue with the Gay couple they wouldn't care about the bi-racial baby.

 stanman wrote:


It has a huge and permanent impact on the lives of the parents as well as the life of their child which is why it runs so much deeper then just getting a simple refund.

.

Yeup.

I'm all against frivolous lawsuits (which is why, despite having had a significant amount of Red Bull, I won't be filing for my $10).

To me, this is the antithesis of a frivolous lawsuit.

In my opinion, this should be the kind of mistake that shuts a sperm bank down.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm all against frivolous lawsuits (which is why, despite having had a significant amount of Red Bull, I won't be filing for my $10)..

1.) Is anyone "for" frivolous lawsuits?

2.) The Red Bull lawsuit is not frivolous. but it's pretty poorly reported, so you have to dig into it a bit to learn that.

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm all against frivolous lawsuits (which is why, despite having had a significant amount of Red Bull, I won't be filing for my $10)..

1.) Is anyone "for" frivolous lawsuits?

...Lawyers?

 Bromsy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'm all against frivolous lawsuits (which is why, despite having had a significant amount of Red Bull, I won't be filing for my $10)..

1.) Is anyone "for" frivolous lawsuits?

...Lawyers?

snort... took the words outta my mouph.

You know, the title of this thread really should be changed to "Woman Sues Sperm Bank for giving her WRONG baby"

 cincydooley wrote:
You know, the title of this thread really should be changed to "Woman Sues Sperm Bank for giving her WRONG baby"

But clickbait!

No, the suit claims racial reasons for the compensation and hardship. like going to a black barbershop or wanting to leave a town that seems to be ok with a same sex couple, but not a Biracial baby

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
No, the suit claims racial reasons for the compensation and hardship. like going to a black barbershop or wanting to leave a town that seems to be ok with a same sex couple, but not a Biracial baby

Or not:

Cramblett said she decided to sue to prevent the sperm bank from making the same mistake again. The lawsuit says the sperm bank has no electronic record-keeping and no quality controls that would have prevented it from sending the wrong sperm to fertility clinics.

and

Jennifer Cramblett of Uniontown, Ohio, is seeking more than $50,000 in damages from Midwest Sperm Bank in Downer's Grover, Ill., in a suit she insists is not about race. She claims she chose a white man's sperm so that the baby would look like her partner, Amanda Zinkon, but due to a clerical mix-up, she received an African-American man's sperm.

But part of the reason is that it is about race
Lack of racial diversity in their town
With the birth of Payton, Cramblett and Zinkon were confronted with raising their mixed race child in Uniontown, Ohio, a rural community south of Akron that, according to the last census, is 98% white.
Cramblett suffers from "stress and anxiety" just thinking of Payton having to attend and all-white school and being "stigmatized or unrecognized."