Ohio Woman Loses Lawsuit Against Sperm Bank That Mistakenly Impregnated Her With African American Sperm

2BFE786500000578-3224650-image-a-52_1441586131983There is a fascinating case out of Illinois where DuPage County judge Ronald Sutter has tossed out a lawsuit by Jennifer Cramblett, who sued after a sperm bank mistakenly impregnated her with sperm from an African-American rather than the white donor she selected. The result was a mixed-race baby. The response from the sperm bank was astonishing. They apologized and reportedly refunded only part of the cost to Cramblett and her partner Amanda Zinkon.

2BFE7C1F00000578-3224650-image-m-50_1441586078146Cramblett alleges that the couple chose sperm from donor No. 380, a white man, but they were given sperm from donor No. 330, a black man. An employee simply misread the numbers. After the birth of Payton, the couple wanted to plan a second child and called the sperm bank to ask for another impregnation with the sperm of donor 380. The receptionist asked if she meant that she wanted sperm from No. 330 and asked to confirm that she wanted sperm from an African American. The error then became obvious to both her and the employee.

Cramblett is not saying that they do not love Payton, now 3, who is obviously a beautiful child. However, they insist that the sperm bank violated their agreement, impregnated her with sperm that she did not consent to, and imposed a burden on her and her family. They live in a predominantly white area of Uniontown, Ohio, and she says that there is a feeling of Payton being an “outcast” and that even haircuts are an added burden.

The mistake appears to be due to the use of paper records that allowed the misreading of the numbers — something that sounds remarkably casual and negligent.

Judge Sutter however threw out the lawsuit as lacking legal merit. The sperm bank lawyers prevailed in arguing that the only successful “wrongful birth” cases tend to be babies with severe birth defects. Sutter also rejected the claim of “breach of warranty.” In Sutter’s favor, I was surprised by the limited grounds of the complaint — particularly the absence of the obvious negligence claim. The case can be refiled with a negligence claim. It would seem that negligence is rather obvious. The question will be right to or level of injury or damages. The baby is healthy and the impregnation obviously was successful. What remains is highly controversial in treating a mixed race baby as an injury. Yet, this couple was offered and agree to impregnation with a specific man’s sperm. That raises an array of tort and contract claims that could be made. In the end, however, you are left with the notion of a baby being an injury due to its race.

She sought at least $50,000 in damages.

What do you think? Should a mother be able to recover damages for having a mixed race baby?

Source: Washington Post

49 thoughts on “Ohio Woman Loses Lawsuit Against Sperm Bank That Mistakenly Impregnated Her With African American Sperm”

  1. And they say race isn’t a problem look at how some of you talk. I see how this person can be mad because she didn’t get what she paid for , but damn people. She’s clearly showing her feelings about another human/race which some of you over looked . You treat someone with out love and look at them like a zoo animal then turn around and say look look how they are. Forget about what we said or did , but hey look at those people. Not fixing the problem at all but want to point it out so sad USA should be the new name. The problem ends with you in your way of thinking that’s a mental sickness.

  2. Come on, do we really have to be this politically correct? This is a case of purchasing one thing and when you get it home and open the box, something else is inside. You can’t take it back, though. You may like what is inside the box but that doesn’t mean the merchant doesn’t have liability.

  3. Lots of conventional couples have kids for their amusement, similar to having pets. The kids sometimes make it and sometimes they don’t. The problem here is that with a lesbian couple there might have been something strong, a model for the child to learn by, that love and intelligence are the main ingredients. This works with a lot of gay couples and their children. The kid learns to separate that which is really important from the paint job. However, these two gems have destroyed that and revealed that they were just shopping for a pet. Poor kid, will grow up mean and angry or perhaps strong. The kid will never be able to erase the fact that their moms weren’t happy with the promises made by the pet store.

  4. I know some people won’t like this, but we were better off having families the old fashioned way. When the child arrived we loved it. That was it. God bless this little kid.

  5. Riesling,

    “Beauty is In the eye of the beholder.” Behold away, my friend.


    “…to ourselves and our posterity,…”

    Why, do you suppose, the Founders made that statement (a statement, by the way, that certainly appears not to need any “interpretation” by the SCOTUS)? Notice the Founders did not say to Syrians, Guatemalans, East Timorians, or any other foreign group. They affirmatively stated, “…OUR-selves and OUR posterity,…” Why did the Founders deliberately use those words and not other words?

    Funny, huh? You don’t suppose the Founders used those particular words because those words presented exactly and precisely what they wanted to present and nothing else?

  6. Annie … I agree with you in principle, but in the case of the “Toad” there is no such thing as a “good discussion.” That said, I will try hard, once again, to ignore him…and rely on most of the post authors to delete him up arrival. In short, I get your point.

  7. I think they should have won the lawsuit and I think the sperm bank should be investigated for hate crimes as it is obviously a hate crime to impregnate a White woman with a Black males spawn without her express desire for that outcome.

Comments are closed.