## Facts

- Donna Prato-Morrison and Robert Morrison underwent IVF at a university fertility clinic in 1988, entrusting genetic material for their own attempted conception.
- Their IVF efforts failed, and they discontinued treatment believing remaining genetic material would be destroyed.
- Years later, public allegations surfaced that the clinic had misused patients’ genetic materials, including nonconsensual transfers.
- Judith Doe and Jacob Doe, married fertility-clinic patients, had twin daughters who had lived with them since birth and viewed them as their parents; the twins were unaware of any dispute regarding their conception.
- The Morrisons suspected their genetic material was used in the procedure resulting in the Does’ twins and sued the Does seeking a judicial determination of genetic parentage and custody; they later withdrew the custody request.
- The Morrisons continued to seek court-ordered blood/DNA testing of the adults and twins and requested visitation if a genetic relationship were established.
- To support their suspicion, the Morrisons offered a declaration and handwritten list from a clinic biologist purporting to indicate that Donna Morrison’s eggs were transferred to Judith Doe.
- The Does objected that the proffered materials were inadmissible hearsay and improperly invaded medical confidentiality and privacy.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly excluded the biologist’s declaration and list as hearsay and as violating confidentiality, leaving no admissible showing to support standing to compel blood/DNA testing.
2. Whether, even assuming a genetic connection, the law permits compelled testing or visitation sought by genetic contributors who are strangers to children raised in an intact family, consistent with the children’s best interests and California parentage rules.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order granting the motion to quash and dismissing the complaint.
- The court upheld exclusion of the declaration and handwritten list as inadmissible hearsay and as improperly implicating confidential medical information.
- With the proffered materials excluded, the Morrisons had no admissible evidence linking them to the twins and therefore failed to establish standing to compel testing or obtain relief.
- Independently, the court held that even if a genetic link were assumed, the best interests of the twins and the stability of their established family with the Does barred the requested intrusion (testing and visitation).

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking to compel genetic testing in a parentage-related dispute must make an admissible factual showing connecting the party to the child; unsupported suspicion is insufficient.
- Trial courts may exclude proffered proof that is hearsay without an applicable exception and may also prevent attempts to obtain or use information that invades protected medical confidentiality and privacy without adequate legal basis.
- In assisted reproduction and parentage disputes, genetic connection alone does not necessarily confer parental rights; legal parentage and child welfare heavily weight intention, existing parent-child relationships, and family stability.
- The child’s best interests can preclude compelled testing or court-ordered contact where it would disrupt an established parent-child relationship and the requesting adults are strangers to the child.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the plaintiffs offered no admissible evidence tying them to the children and, in any event, the children’s best interests and the integrity of the established family with their parents barred compelled testing and visitation.


Prato-Morrison v. Doe, 126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 509 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)