The Netflix documentary “Our Father,” released in 2022, unveiled the disturbing story of Dr. Donald Cline, a fertility doctor from Indianapolis who secretly inseminated dozens of his patients with his own sperm, fathering at least 94 children without their knowledge or consent. The film’s release, however, had unintended consequences, leading to a lawsuit against Netflix and Blumhouse Productions’ documentary company, RealHouse, by some of Cline’s biological children who claimed their identities were revealed in the documentary without their permission.
Lori Kennard, one of Cline’s biological children, filed a lawsuit against Netflix and RealHouse, alleging recklessness and negligence in failing to protect her identity. Kennard asserted that the documentary producers had assured her she would not be identifiable in the film, but her name was not blurred, leading to her being “outed” as one of Cline’s offspring. The lawsuit described the “severe harm” Kennard suffered due to her appearance in the documentary, including damage to her reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and traumatization. The complaint also highlighted social media posts promoting the documentary that further exposed her identity.
An eight-person jury in Indianapolis sided with Kennard, awarding her $385,000 in damages. This verdict confirmed that Kennard had actively kept her connection to Cline a secret, unlike another plaintiff in the same lawsuit, Sarah Bowling, whose claim was rejected by the jury, suggesting that Bowling’s connection to Cline was already public knowledge. A third plaintiff’s claims were dismissed before the trial even commenced. The jury’s contrasting decisions underscore the importance of individual privacy concerns and the varying degrees to which Cline’s biological children had chosen to disclose their connection to him.
The “Our Father” documentary delves into the shocking details of Cline’s actions, revealing how he used his position of trust to deceive his patients for years. During the 1970s and 80s, Cline told his patients they were receiving sperm from medical residents, dental residents, or medical students, reassuring them that no single donor’s sperm was used more than three times. In reality, Cline was using his own sperm, a fact that remained hidden until several of his adult children utilized DNA testing services like 23andMe, uncovering the shocking truth about their parentage and the extent of Cline’s deception.
Cline’s fraudulent activities were initially exposed in 2015, leading to investigations and legal proceedings. When questioned by investigators from the Indiana attorney general’s office in 2016, Cline denied ever using his own sperm to inseminate patients. This denial led to him being charged with two counts of obstruction of justice in 2017, to which he pleaded guilty. However, Cline received a suspended sentence, avoiding jail time. The case prompted Indiana lawmakers to enact a fertility fraud statute, criminalizing such deceitful practices in the future.
Following these revelations and legal actions, Cline surrendered his medical license in 2018. The Indiana Medical Licensing Board further ensured that Cline would never practice medicine again by permanently barring him from seeking reinstatement of his license. This case highlights the devastating impact of fertility fraud, not only on the direct victims but also on the lives of their children, who were unknowingly conceived through deceit. The “Our Father” documentary brought this crucial issue to the forefront, generating public awareness and contributing to legal changes that aim to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future, while also demonstrating the complex legal and ethical implications of revealing sensitive information in documentary filmmaking.
The Kennard case demonstrates the challenges ofbalancing the public’s right to know with an individual’s right to privacy, particularly in the context of documentary filmmaking. While the documentary aimed to expose Cline’s deceitful practices and provide a platform for his victims, it also resulted in unintended consequences for individuals like Kennard, who sought to keep their connection to Cline private. The jury’s decision underlines the importance of obtaining informed consent and protecting the identities of individuals involved in sensitive stories, even when dealing with matters of public interest. The case also highlights the potential legal ramifications for filmmakers who fail to adequately protect the privacy of their subjects, particularly when dealing with sensitive and potentially traumatic personal information.
