A man from Las Vegas recently uncovered a shocking truth 17 years after he and his late wife underwent artificial insemination: he has no genetic ties to his daughter. This revelation has prompted them to file a lawsuit against the doctor involved nearly two decades ago. The couple, who have chosen to remain anonymous, submitted their case to the Clark County District Court on September 30.
In 2004, the couple sought treatment at a Nevada fertility clinic operated by Dr. Rachel McConnell. Using the man’s sperm along with a donor egg, the couple worked alongside embryo specialist Dee Harris, which ultimately led to the birth of their daughter in October 2006.
The truth came to light when the now 17-year-old girl took a DNA test through Ancestry.com. On October 6, 2023, she received unexpected news: her father was not her biological parent. This revelation left her father bewildered, as he struggled to understand how an embryo created from his sperm could result in a daughter with no genetic connection to him.
The lawsuit states, “The actions of the defendants deprived the plaintiff of the opportunity to continue his lineage, which was promised to him.” The plaintiffs accuse McConnell and Harris of gross negligence, claiming they failed to meet professional standards and that their actions have caused significant emotional distress for both the father and daughter.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that the defendants not only neglected basic care but also willfully disregarded the rights and safety of others, describing their conduct as reprehensible.
As they navigate this legal challenge, the father and daughter are looking into adoption to formalize their relationship, a process they describe as prohibitively expensive. They are pursuing a trial and seeking damages as part of their lawsuit.
ABC News reached out to McConnell and Harris for comments but did not receive any responses. Ancestry.com has also remained silent on inquiries regarding the case. The father and daughter chose not to participate in interviews.
The law firm representing them, Murdock and Associates, highlighted that this case stems from a failure by the defendants to follow precise operating procedures, resulting in this distressing mix-up.
