A couple who claims a gynecologist used his own semen to impregnate the woman through artificial insemination is seeking to have the doctor, John Boyd Coates, submit to saliva testing to confirm paternity.
Cheryl and Peter Rousseau went to Coates more than 40 years ago for artificial insemination treatment. A few months ago, their daughter, now 41, used Ancestry.com and 23andme.com to find information about her biological father, but the results allegedly showed that Coates was the donor. Coates had previously told the Rousseaus that the donor was a medical student that he had cleared. Until the test, the couple had “no inclination” that might not be the case.
Now, the Rousseaus have filed a motion compelling Coates to submit to testing — done via cheek swab — to collect his DNA. Coates is retired and lives in Shelburne. The Rousseaus lived in central Vermont when they went to Coates and now reside in Florida.
Coates is arguing that the federal law concerning submitting to mental or physical tests cannot be used “to compel genetic testing” in a civil paternity suit because the law was passed at a time when sophisticated genetic testing didn’t exist.
The Rousseau case makes note of a 1970 amendment to the law that expressly includes blood examination to the kinds of testing that can be ordered. The amendment was added based on a 1940 case, Beach v. Beach, wherein a “blood grouping test” was ordered in a paternity suit.
The D.C. circuit confirmed the 1940 ruling, stating “If the child is [the husband’s], the tests will prove nothing and harm no one. If the child is not his, it would be unjust to prevent him from proving the fact.”
The Rousseaus disputed Coates’s claim that the drafters of the law never contemplated the use of genetic testing. They noted the case in question also involved paternity.
“The Rousseaus do not seek ‘a heretofore undreamt-of world of personal data’ as Dr. Coates suggests,” the motion states. “Rather, they seek nothing more than the husband sought in Beach — a genetic test.”
The husband in the Beach case sought and gained conclusive proof in his 1940s-era paternity suit, the motion states, just as the Rousseaus seek conclusive proof for Coates’ alleged breach of care.
“This court need not address Dr. Coates’ slippery slope argument; the Rousseaus only ask for what courts have routinely ordered since at least the 1940s,” the motion reads.
Jerry O’Neill, the Rousseaus’ lawyer, could not be reached. Peter Joslin, Coates’ lawyer, declined to comment on the case.
The lawsuit includes counts of fraud, medical negligence, battery, failure to obtain informed consent, breach of contract, and inflicting of emotional distress. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages of at least $75,000.
