Lewis V Faulkner Case Summary

796 Words4 Pages
28 October 2004* To: Mr. Attorney Client Sinclair & Emily Lewis Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 555-1111 Subject: Lewis v. Faulkner 1. Purpose. This is a case in which Mr. and Mrs. Lewis are seeking counsel to determine whether they have parental rights over their child and if Mr. Faulkner has the ability to be granted visitation rights. 2. Facts. Our client, Sinclair Lewis and Emily Bronte-Lewis, are seeking counsel to determine whether Mr. Faulkner has parental rights over their daughter. Mrs. Lewis went to the Smith Institute in Norfolk, VA for artificially insemination and later gave birth to a baby girl in 2000. Mr. and Mrs. Lewis met two years later and then married. In 2003, Mr. Lewis was in the process of adopting his…show more content…
Bubba-Ray Faulkner, the natural father of the child, was convicted of rape, served 10 years in prison, and was recently released on parole two months ago. Our private investigator discovered information that the Smith Institute performed an internal audit. Mr. and Mrs. Lewis was notified through a letter that Mr. Faulkner is the biological father and that his semen was transferred by accident along with a full release of liability form, sent by the institution, that was signed voluntarily by Mr. and Mrs. Lewis. Our clients did not disclose this information to us or anyone else. Our clients also did not attempt to notify or contact the natural father, as we assumed that the couple received an anonymous voluntary donation along with a full waiver of parental rights, which is a mandatory procedure of the Smith Institute. Two weeks ago, Mr. Faulkner arrives at the Lewis’ residence, demanding that he is granted visitation rights in the future along with a request to receive a large amount of money to compensate for separation from his biological daughter. Mr. Faulkner states that if the Lewis’ do not comply with his requests, then he will contact authorities and mandate to have his daughter “returned” to

More about Lewis V Faulkner Case Summary

Open Document