Couple Believe Egg Was Taken, Produced a Child

The lawyer for a couple at the heart of UC Irvine’s fertility scandal said Friday he believes a fertilized egg stolen from his clients produced a year-old boy living in Mexico.

“They feel absolutely betrayed,” Larry R. Feldman said of his clients. “They feel violated. They have a sense like a rape victim feels. Their most personal, private part of them has been taken from them. They are very anxious to learn from a proof positive standpoint, does this child exist?”

Feldman said he does not have documentary evidence of the boy’s existence. But he said he was told about the boy by someone he considers highly credible.

“I don’t have this in writing,” he said. “I have this from a source whose information is, should be, reliable. . . . I believe the person who said this--it’s against their best interest to have said this.”

Feldman refused to identify his source, nor would he disclose the identity or location of his clients, who were patients at UC Irvine’s famed fertility clinic.

“They are very private people,” he said, though he acknowledged that they will need to step forward soon when he brings a malpractice lawsuit on their behalf.

Feldman recently notified three UCI doctors--Ricardo H. Asch, Jose P. Balmaceda and Sergio Stone--that his clients will sue them for unspecified damages, along with the UC Board of Regents and UCI’s now defunct Center for Reproductive Health.

*

Lawyers for the three doctors were unavailable for comment late Friday, though all three doctors have repeatedly and vigorously denied any wrongdoing since suspicions about them were made public three weeks ago.

Frank W. Clark Jr., a lawyer and member of the UC Board of Regents, said he knew “almost nothing” about Feldman’s legal claim.

“I’ve never seen a lawsuit of that nature, and I wouldn’t have any comment,” he said, pausing, then adding:

“That’s interesting. . . . I don’t know Mr. Feldman. I think the regents are just scrambling around trying to find out what the situation is.”

In a separate May 25 lawsuit against the doctors, UC Irvine officials alleged that the doctors obstructed an investigation into improper practices at their fertility clinic. The university also accuses the doctors of taking patient eggs and implanting them without the donors’ consent.

Donald A. Goldman, a lawyer for the regents, said in court papers that medical records were mysteriously missing, including files for Feldman’s client, a woman who underwent fertilization procedures in 1993 and 1994.

Just last month, Asch asked the woman to sign a retroactive release form for her eggs, the court papers claim. When she refused, Asch allegedly sent an associate to her house to get her signature.

“One thing is clear,” Feldman said. “She donated eggs and she did not consent to anyone taking her eggs. Nor would most people in their right mind consent to do this.”

Feldman said his clients are not sure what they will do if they confirm that their fertilized egg has produced a child.

But he hinted that they might seek custody.

“I think the unknown is tearing them apart right now,” he said. “They are a family that wanted children, and wants children, and they want to know what the true facts are, and then make a judgment as to what is not only in the best interest of the child, but their best interest.”

*

Feldman blasted UC Irvine officials, saying they were foolish to pay $900,000 and insist on confidentiality from three whistle-blowers, because he will soon compel those whistle-blowers to tell all in sworn depositions.

“I intend to depose them,” Feldman said, scoffing at the university’s use of public funds. “That agreement doesn’t stop me from taking their depositions.”

University officials agreed to pay $495,000 to one of three people whose allegations have now prompted a slew of state, federal, civil and criminal investigations, according to a copy of the settlement agreement obtained by The Times.

The payment--along with about $400,000 in payments to two other whistle-blowers--was to be made as part of a settlement that includes a promise of confidentiality.

University officials, who say they insisted on confidentiality to protect patients, have declined to identify the whistle-blowers. Feldman said their anonymity will be as short-lived as his clients’.

“We’re going to be able to find out who those people are.”

Feldman gained a measure of fame in 1993 when he represented a 13-year-old boy in a child molestation suit against pop star Michael Jackson.

His most famous client these days is O.J. Simpson’s lawyer, Johnnie L. Cochran Jr., whom he is defending against a palimony suit brought by a woman alleging she is the mother of Cochran’s 21-year-old son.

Feldman said it is conceivable, and ironic, that he will become more embroiled than Cochran in obtuse data involving DNA, the genetic identification that is a key part of the prosecution’s ongoing case against Simpson. DNA tests, Feldman said, may be required to determine if his clients are biological parents of the child in Mexico.

“I know these guys,” Feldman said of Simpson’s defense attorneys. “I’m representing them. I’ll get all the stuff on DNA.”

Feldman also said it is possible that a lawyer will someday represent the child in question.

“Could this kid sue for support?” he said. “If one of these parents died, could [he] get Social Security benefits?”

Feldman said the case poses a variety of ethical and intellectual challenges, and he wonders about the outcome’s effect on society at large.

“The ramifications are really troublesome. These are things we haven’t thought through as a society, or by laws. Are these children heirs? Whose kids are these?

“We haven’t dealt with this to my knowledge in California. If you were a right-to-life person, I would suspect they would argue this is kidnaping.”