When pregnancy is NOT proof of motherhood....

This morning I came across this article which outlines what has to be one of the weirdest cases of biological possibility.

Thanks to a rare medical condition, a Washington state woman found out that pregnancy was not enough to prove motherhood; DNA testing indicated that she was, in fact, not the mother of her own children – so who was? During the course of a desperate battle to retain custody of her three children, it was discovered that her twin was the real biological parent. The twist? She, 26-year-old Lydia Fairchild, was her own twin.

Fate, however, was on Lydia’s side when one of the prosecutors in her case stumbled upon an article in the New England Journal of Medicine. That article had been written by Karen Keegan’s doctors and chronicled the incredible discovery they had made. Further exploration of the mystery of Fairchild’s DNA was ordered and a genetic link between her mother and her own children was confirmed. When Fairchild later had a cervical smear, DNA from it was tested and found to match that of her children. Fairchild’s lost twin, it appeared, had lived on as cells only found in her ovaries; she was her own twin – and the twin was the biological mother of her children.

Interesting, huh?

(hope i've posted it in the right forum)

I remember an episode on CSI about a man being charged with rape and murder who had two different types of DNA. His saliva contained one set but his semen didn't match it. I don't recall what the condition was called and its rare but apparently was possible. I am not sure what to look up to get more information. I found this on wiki which seems to explain it.

en.wikipedia.org...(genetics)

It even mentions your girl.

Very interesting.. this must be Maury Povich's worst fear.. lol

This is a crazy story, but I'm not sure I like the implications at the end of the article that because this condition exists, we need to reconsider DNA testing. The article itself says that only 30 documented cases have ever been reported of this condition; I don't see too many people being improperly DNA tested and having their lives ruined because of it.

reply to post by meridie


IVF with donor eggs won't match the birth mother DNA. I believe the law is clear in this area.
The female that gives live birth and is named on the birth cert is by all legal definition the mother for life.

Anyone with precedent to the contrary, please bring it to this thread.

meridie
This morning I came across this article which outlines what has to be one of the weirdest cases of biological possibility.

Thanks to a rare medical condition, a Washington state woman found out that pregnancy was not enough to prove motherhood; DNA testing indicated that she was, in fact, not the mother of her own children – so who was? During the course of a desperate battle to retain custody of her three children, it was discovered that her twin was the real biological parent. The twist? She, 26-year-old Lydia Fairchild, was her own twin.

Fate, however, was on Lydia’s side when one of the prosecutors in her case stumbled upon an article in the New England Journal of Medicine. That article had been written by Karen Keegan’s doctors and chronicled the incredible discovery they had made. Further exploration of the mystery of Fairchild’s DNA was ordered and a genetic link between her mother and her own children was confirmed. When Fairchild later had a cervical smear, DNA from it was tested and found to match that of her children. Fairchild’s lost twin, it appeared, had lived on as cells only found in her ovaries; she was her own twin – and the twin was the biological mother of her children.

Interesting, huh?

(hope i've posted it in the right forum)

yea its called chimerism. its like having two sets of dna basically and one is more dominant than the other and when theres blood tests, stuff like that, its more bound to come up than the other set of dna, which can lead to all that parental confusion. i saw a special on tv about a mother that that happened to a couple years ago.