Blog

I didn’t want to spend so much time on this today, but another issue just came up that I think is important enough to share.

A common theme (in fact maybe the only theme) in this case is the idea that “there are no medical records” to show Laura Owens was ever pregnant. Clayton’s lawyer recently made that representation to me, and at the time he did, I was not familiar enough with the case to understand what the facts showed.

Now that I’m getting familiar, there is something really important that needs to be said. First, the idea that there are “there are no medical records” to show Laura Owens was ever pregnant is 100% categorically false. YES, there ARE records. TONS of records. Are they 100% perfect? Are they 100% conclusive? That is a mixed question of personal opinion (what would it take to make you believe YOU were pregnant?), and it’s ultimately something the judge in our case will have to consider.

Laura’s position is clear — if you want to say you don’t trust her, that’s your opinion. If you want to say you don’t find her medical records to be convincing, that’s your opinion. But it is absolutely dead wrong for anyone to say that no records exist. Because they do.

With Laura’s express permission, I want to share one of those records with you (oh, and before you go there – NO, THERE IS NO COURT ORDER STOPPING LAURA FROM PUBLISHING HER OWN RECORDS).

Now, as you probably know, Laura took lots and lots of HPTs (home pregnancy tests). She even took a test that Clayton bought and gave to her. ALL those tests were positive. And yes, Clayton believes all those tests were wrong (although I don’t know what medical expertise he has to express such an opinion; that is something the trial will explore).

But let’s put that aside and assume EVERY HPT is unreliable. What other evidence does Laura have?

Before I answer that, let’s look at what Clayton’s lawyer told the court about this exact point. On January 25, 2024, Clayton’s lawyer filed a brief (Reply To Petitioner’s Response To Motion For Sanctions). In that brief, Clayton’s lawyer said this to the court:

Petitioner wanting to be pregnant and being pregnant are two (2) different things. Despite her repeated assertions, positive hCG tests are not verifiable medical evidence of pregnancy. (Parenthetically, per the Office on Women’s Health, a blood test, which Petitioner ostensibly never underwent, is the best way for a doctor to confirm pregnancy).

Got that? Couple of key points here. First, Clayton’s lawyer told the court positive HCG tests (which is what HPTs are) “are not verifiable medical evidence of pregnancy.” Again, it’s not exactly clear why Clayton claims that EVERY home pregnancy test sold in America is somehow meaningless…but for the purposes of this discussion, let’s ignore that point.

Second, Clayton’s lawyer also told the court that the BEST way for a doctor to confirm pregnancy is with a blood test. OK, fine. And, of course, Clayton’s lawyer asked for sanctions against Laura because he claims she “never underwent” any blood tests.

Can you guess where this is going? Yep, on October 16, 2023, Laura had a blood test done at a lab. Wanna guess what the results showed? PREGNANT. But don’t take my word for it, the report can be viewed right here.

Does this conclusively prove Laura is telling the truth and Clayton is lying? Of course not. That is something the judge will decide for us.

But make no mistake — if anyone tells you there are “no medical records” supporting Laura’s pregnancy, that person is lying to you. And if anyone tells you the ONLY proof Laura had was take-home (pee-type HPT) pregnancy tests, that person is lying to you.

UPDATE (4/4/24): A newegg Twitter account (clearly a troll) just made a comment that, actually, seemed to raise a valid point – the guy looked at Laura’s test posted above and noted something – the HCG level was 102. That is high enough to count as positive for pregnancy, but my troll friend said it was fishy. Why is that important? PPG (Per Professor Google): “The detection of hCG is used to confirm your pregnancy. After you conceive (when the sperm fertilises the egg), your developing placenta begins to produce and release hCG.” Source.

Now I am no expert, but apparently HCG levels change a lot during pregnancy. They start very low and get higher during the pregnancy. A LOT higher. Per this chart, at the start of a pregnancy, HCG levels can range from 0-750, and as things progress, the levels go all the way up to a huge number like 210,000. Even higher for twins.

All else being equal, that suggests a test showing HCG levels of 102 several months into Laura’s pregnancy raise a big red flag. My troll friend (now blocked, sorry bro) seemed to think this absolutely sinks Laura’s case. I mean, if Laura’s levels in the 5th month were only 102, and they should have been 210,000 (or more if twins), yeah, that kinda looks bad for Laura, right?

I don’t agree for two reasons.

First, the same page linked above says this: “Falling hCG levels may show a pregnancy loss (miscarriage).” OK, since Laura claims she had a miscarriage at some point after this test was done, the low HCG levels on this test may (or may not) be explained by that event. If anything, the levels may be completely consistent with Laura’s story – she got pregnant, something went wrong, and she had a miscarriage. I don’t have the scientific knowledge to know what a woman’s HCG levels should be shortly before a non-viable pregnancy ends, but it sure seems like they would drop….maybe all the way down to zero?

But here is the second thing, and it is the key point that EVERYONE seems to be missing – I don’t care about the HCG numbers in her 5th month. That issue is not relevant here.

Why not? How could that possibly not matter?

Here’s why — the HCG number in the 5th month does not matter because IT DOES NOT MATTER IF LAURA WAS OR WAS NOT EVER PREGNANT. Read that again.

Think about this and please try to understand — Laura is no longer pregnant. She admits this. According to her, the miscarriage happened at some point way back in November 2023. Now in April 2024, she does not want the court to declare Clayton is the father, because there is no baby for him to be the father of.

Because of this strange situation – where Laura is no longer pregnant and is not asking the court to say Clayton was or was not the dad – it literally makes no legal difference whether Laura was ever actually pregnant in the first place. Of course, Clayton says she lied about whole thing from the start….and that twist is what changes the situation, drastically. Clayton’s claim is being made to support his request for SANCTIONS (and to support his request for a finding of “non-paternity”). So now we need to ask — how can he get sanctions? What does he need to prove?

To get sanctions, Clayton does not have to prove that Laura was never pregnant (put another way, to avoid sanctions, Laura does not need to conclusively prove she ever WAS pregnant).

To get sanctions, Clayton will have to prove something different – that LAURA HAD NO BASIS TO EVEN THINK SHE WAS PREGNANT WHEN THE CASE WAS FIRST FILED. That is totally and completely different than saying Laura was or wasn’t pregnant months later. We are focused on what she believed on August 1, 2023, not whether that belief was still correct months later down the road (people are allowed to bring cases which end up failing because what they initially believed later turns out to be incorrect). The only thing that matters, for purpose of sanctions, is whether the person *knew* their claim was groundless at the time it was brought, and that is a VERY HIGH HURDLE to clear.

Obviously if a person believes they are pregnant on January 1, and the file a paternity action that day, but they have a miscarriage a month later, the court can’t sanction the woman for bringing a groundless case…because the case was not groundless at the time it was filed. Same thing here.

To repeat: the standard that matters, and the standard the court will be asked to decide, is NOT whether Laura was ever actually pregnant. I could stipulate she was NEVER pregnant, and we can still win.

Here, for purposes of what Clayton is seeking, the correct legal standard is: “Did Laura have any reasonable basis to think she might be pregnant when the case was first filed on August 1, 2023?” That’s it. That is the ENTIRE CASE. HCG levels months later? Not even the slightest bit relevant. And if you don’t believe that, take more time and think about it. You will eventually see the light.

If Laura was NEVER pregnant, but she had a good faith reason to think she was, Clayton will lose his request for sanctions. For the umpteenth time – that is what will happen, even if Laura was never actually pregnant.