IVF mix-up: 'I fear my son will feel he is a mistake'

Koen and Tuen Stuart are brothers. They are loved equally loved by their legal parents, Wilma and Willem, who had fertility treatment in 1993 at the Academic Hospital in Utrecht in order to have them. But a failure properly to sterilise a pipette meant that during the treatment Mrs Stuart was impregnated with both the sperm of her husband and that of a black man who was also a patient at the centre. The result is that the boys have different fathers. Koen is black, while Tuen, like the Stuarts, is white.

"When I learned the truth," said Mrs Stuart, "my first reaction, if you want it bluntly, was to feel as if I had been raped. My biggest fear is that Koen will grow up and think that his whole existence was the result of someone's mistake." The case prompted a tightening of IVF rules in Holland and Britain. The Stuarts have retained custody of both boys under Dutch law while the black father who came from the Antilles had counselling before dropping any claim over his child.

Another notorious case involved a white couple, Donna and Richard Fasano, who were attempting to have a child at the In Vitro Fertility Centre of New York. A black couple, Deborah and Robert Rogers, were also going to the same clinic. Through a mistake at the centre, embryos consisting entirely of the Rogerses' genetic material were implanted in the womb of Mrs Fasano, along with embryos from Mrs Fasano and her husband.

In June 1998, less than two months after implantation, both couples were notified of the mistake and of the need for DNA tests. Mrs Rogers, from New Jersey, did not become pregnant. But when Mrs Fasano gave birth to two boys that December the evidence of a mix-up was clear for all to see with no need for such tests: one of the boys was white, the other was black. After DNA testing proved the parentage of the children, the Fasanos gave legal custody of the black boy, Akeil, to the Rogers in May 1999, but only after securing an agreement that they could visit the child. The Rogers soon reneged on the deal, saying they had signed it under duress.

The Fasanos sued, and initially won the right to visit Akeil. But that decision was overturned by appeal court judges, who ruled that "the Fasanos' parenthood of Akeil should have been treated as a mistake to be corrected as soon as possible".

The decision was naturally a relief to the Rogers. Their lawyer said they "wept with happiness and relief". In a statement the couple later said it was possible they would allow the Fasanos – whose natural son was named Vincent – the right to visit Akeil when he was older. "Perhaps, one day, when Akeil is mature enough to understand his unique beginnings, we will be able to reach out to the Fasanos in friendship and fellowship," they said.