Prato-Morrison v. Doe

126 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 (2002)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Prato-Morrison v. Doe

Court of Appeal of California
126 Cal.Rptr.2d 509 (2002)


Donna Prato-Morrison (plaintiff) and her husband, Robert, were patients at a fertility clinic at the University of California at Irvine’s (UCI) Center for Reproductive Health (CRH). The Morrisons entrusted CRH with eggs and sperm and hoped the resulting embryos would give them a child. The Morrisons never conceived and thereafter stopped seeking assistance at CRH and assumed that any remaining genetic material would be destroyed. Years later, UCI discovered that some of the eggs were taken from clinic patients without consent. Prato-Morrison learned that the CRH had “stolen” some of her eggs without her consent. Prato-Morrison filed suit against UCI, CRH, and the physicians involved in the “egg stealing”. During the course of settling the case, the Morrisons learned that CRH implanted their genetic material in Judith Doe who had given birth to twin daughters. The Morrisons filed suit against Judith and Jacob Doe (defendants) claiming they were the twins’ genetic parents and seeking custody of the girls. The Morrisons later abandoned their quest for custody and, instead, sought visitation and an order requiring all parties to undergo a blood test to confirm parentage. A hearing was set to determine the Morrisons’ right to obtain a DNA test and to have a mental health professional determine the appropriate amount of visitation. The Does asked that the Morrisons’ complaint be dismissed on the grounds that the Does were the presumed natural and legal parents under state law and the Morrisons lacked standing to compel DNA testing. The trial court granted the Does’ request and found that the Morrisons had failed to establish their status as “interested parties.” However, the court continued the matter to allow the Morrisons to gather and present supporting evidence to establish standing. The Morrisons submitted a declaration and handwritten list from Teri Ord, a fertility biologist, stating that nonconsensual transfers of genetic material occurred at UCI and some of Prato-Morrison’s eggs were transplanted into Judith Doe. The Does objected to the document as hearsay without an applicable exception as well as a violation of their right to patient-physician confidentiality. The trial court agreed and dismissed the Morrisons’ complaint. The Morrisons appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Vogel, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 743,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership