Chapter 17 - The Women from Riverbend
The Riverbend civil case introduced me to four women I never would have met otherwise.
Jessica Moore.
Rachel King.
Beth Lawson.
Nicole Avery.
Different stories.
None identical.
We refused media label “Riverbend Five.”
Lawyers loved simple groups.
Lives were not.
Jessica had consented to donor sperm but clinic used a different donor without informing.
Rachel, like me, believed spouse sperm used.
Beth had donor consent but signature witnessed improperly; she had no reproductive deception, only record problem, and eventually withdrew major claim after review.
Nicole had frozen embryos transferred under disputed consent after divorce? Different.
Audit separated.
That was important.
Not every bad chart meant same crime.
Dr. Hale’s intentional wrongdoing strongest in mine and Rachel’s.
Medical board reports detailed.
Then Rachel King discovered her husband had also known donor substitution.
He admitted.
Their marriage ended.
We spoke once.
She said:
“The worst part is I might have agreed.”
“Yes.”
We both cried.
Consent stolen even when hypothetical yes.
Then legislative hearing? Texas lawmakers maybe consider stronger fertility fraud protections. Could be political/current. Fiction. We can avoid.
Hospital ethics panel invited me to give victim statement privately.
I said:
“When a clinic lets spouse interpret another patient's consent, it turns marriage into proxy authority.”
That became training.
Then Riverbend settlement finalized.
No more claims.
Dr. Hale completed prison term later and probation.
He wrote public apology through medical board.
I did not read until years later.
He admitted:
“I accepted family pressure as substitute for patient consent.”
Good.
No contact with me.
Then Molly at twelve wanted donor identity.
June ten did not.
We consulted attorney.
Original donor agreement allowed identity release to offspring at eighteen if donor had opted in later.
He had not at donation.
Sperm bank later offered contact registry.
Donor D-447 had joined.
Interesting.
Why?
He was in his fifties now, had own family, open to adult offspring contact through moderated registry.
Molly had to wait until eighteen.
She hated.
“Why?”
“Because agreement.”
“Wasn't my agreement.”
“No, but privacy rules protect him too.”
She understood eventually.
Then she asked:
“Can I DNA website?”
At twelve, no.
“As adult, your choice. Understand privacy consequences.”
Good.
June:
“I don't care.”
Different.
Then Samuel would have been eight.
We did not mark every birthday publicly.
Some years tree.
Some years nothing.
Grief changed.
Then I started dating.
His name Andrew Cole, an electrician Caroline knew.
I waited eighteen months before introducing girls.
Molly suspicious.
“Why do we need man?”
“We don't.”
“Then why?”
“Because I like him.”
She considered.
“Okay.”
Andrew never moved in quickly.
No father role.
At first June liked him more.
Molly tested.
“You're not my dad.”
Andrew:
“Correct.”
She was disarmed.
We married when Molly sixteen, June fourteen.
Small ceremony.
Both girls stood with me.
No replacing Samuel.
No replacing Travis.
Then Andrew asked whether to adopt girls.
I said:
“Ask them when adults? Or now?”
Legal adoption by stepparent possible after termination rights. But no need.
Molly:
“No.”
June:
“Maybe.”
We did not split.
Andrew:
“No adoption unless both separately want for themselves, not to match.”
At eighteen Molly still no.
At sixteen June said yes.
Would unequal legal surnames? Both Bennett already. June wanted Andrew as legal parent? We could allow individual. But might complicate.
Maybe Andrew never adopts. Relationship doesn't need paperwork.
Good.
Then Travis’s prison letters to girls.
After termination, allowed only if they choose.
Molly refused.
June at fifteen asked read.
First letter:
June,
You do not have to answer.
Good.
Then:
I am sorry I called you failure because you were girl.
Then:
I was the failure in that sentence.
Therapy words, but true.
June cried.
Wrote:
I hate you.
He replied:
You are allowed.
No guilt.
Later she wrote once a year.
Molly no contact.
I did not push.
Then Marlene’s sentence.
After nine years, she was eligible for parole? On 13-year sentence, perhaps after time/credits. She was 71. Board denied first.
Reason offense severity, ongoing minimization? She had good behavior but risk.
At year eleven, approved supervised release.
No-contact remained.
She moved to senior apartment near sister.
No approach.
Then she sent through victim services:
I will not ask to see Molly or June.
Good.
Then died? Later.
Before, Molly at 18 wanted one meeting.
Unexpected.
Why?
“I want ask why girls.”
We planned.
Neutral.
Marlene older.
She started:
“Molly—”
Molly:
“Don't call me sweetheart.”
Marlene nodded.
Then:
“Why did you hate us?”
“I didn't.”
“That's not answer.”
Marlene cried.
“I hated what your existence reminded Travis about.”
Molly:
“That he wasn't biological?”
“Yes.”
“And you blamed us?”
“Yes.”
“Why?”
“Because blaming children was easier than telling my son truth.”
Molly stared.
“That’s disgusting.”
“Yes.”
Then:
“Did you love us?”
“Yes.”
Molly:
“You don't get points.”
“No.”
Then she left after twenty minutes.
No hug.
Later said:
“I feel better.”
May you like
Not forgiveness.
Truth.
