Ronald Stoughton and Rebecca Myers v. State of Iowa

• Court: Supreme Court of Iowa
• Decided: March 14, 2025
• Docket: 24-1018
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Iowa Supreme Court

No. 24–1018

Submitted February 11, 2025—Filed March 14, 2025

Ronald Stoughton and Rebecca Myers,

Appellants,

vs.

State of Iowa,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever,

judge.

Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their action under the Fraud in Assisted

Reproduction Act. Affirmed.

Per curiam.

James P. Hayes, Karen A. Lorenzen, and Michael H. Biderman of Hayes

Lorenzen Biderman Lawyers PLC, Iowa City, for appellants.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General; Eric H. Wessan, Solicitor General;

William C. Admussen, Assistant Solicitor General; Christopher J. Deist,

Assistant Attorney General; and Pope S. Yamada and Carolyn Russell Wallace of

Phelan Tucker Law L.L.P., Iowa City, for appellee. 2

This case raises the same issue decided in Miller v. State, ___ N.W.3d ___

(Iowa 2025): Whether Iowa Code chapter 714I, the Fraud in Assisted

Reproduction Act (FARA), enacted in 2022, applies retrospectively. We held that

it does not. Id. at ___. Miller controls the outcome of this case.

In the 1940s, Marlys and Clyde Stoughton, husband and wife, were

struggling to conceive a child. The couple sought assistance from the Department

of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics in

Iowa City. They were seen by Dr. John H. Randall, a state employee, who

suggested that the couple undergo fertility treatment. The treatment was

successful, and Marlys gave birth to Ronald Stoughton on December 14, 1943,

and Rebecca (Stoughton) Myers on November 22, 1948. Marlys and Clyde

Stoughton, as well as Dr. Randall, have all passed away.

Ronald and Rebecca always believed that their biological father was Clyde

Stoughton. However, the siblings discovered through DNA testing via

Ancestory.com that Dr. John Randall was their actual biological father. Believing

Dr. Randall had deceived their parents about the identity of the sperm used in

their fertility treatment, the siblings asserted claims against the State of Iowa for

damages under the newly enacted FARA. They brought this action in district

court under FARA after their claims were denied by the State Appeal Board. The

State moved to dismiss their petition on grounds that FARA does not apply

retroactively to fertility fraud occurring before its enactment. The plaintiffs

resisted, arguing that the legislature intended FARA to apply retrospectively to

the actions taken by healthcare professionals prior to the statute’s enactment.

The district court agreed with the State and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs

appealed, and we retained the case. 3

Iowa Code section 4.5 (2023) provides that “[a] statute is presumed to be

prospective in its operation unless expressly made retrospective.” There is no

express language in FARA that allows it to apply retrospectively. In Miller, we

held that FARA does not apply retroactively to fraud that occurred before its

enactment. ___ N.W.3d at ___.

Because Dr. Randall’s actions occurred prior to FARA’s enactment, the

statute is inapplicable. Applying Miller, we affirm the district court’s judgment

dismissing the case with prejudice.

Affirmed.

This opinion shall not be published.