A judge set weekly check-ins and a discovery deadline as the search for the baby’s genetic family continues.
SEMINOLE COUNTY, Fla. — A Central Florida couple asked a judge to push a fertility clinic toward wider genetic testing after the couple learned their IVF pregnancy resulted from the wrong embryo, leaving them caring for a baby girl who is not genetically related to either parent.
The dispute is unfolding in court as the couple, Tiffany Score and Steven Mills, says it is trying to identify the child’s biological parents while also trying to secure answers about what happened to their own embryos. Their lawyers argue time matters because medical records and consent requests can lag, and because another family could be unknowingly affected by the same mistake.
At a Feb. 17 hearing, the couple’s attorneys told the court that testing has already shown Score and Mills have no genetic connection to their daughter, who they call Shay. The couple has said they love the child and want to continue raising her, but also believes her genetic parents should be found and notified. “We love our little girl,” the family said in a written statement released through its legal team, adding that they feel a “moral obligation” to locate her genetic family.
The case centers on what the couple describes as an IVF mix-up involving the Fertility Center of Orlando in Longwood and its lead physician, Dr. Milton McNichol. The clinic has said it is cooperating with an investigation to determine how the error happened. In court, lawyers for the parents said the clinic’s help is necessary because the clinic controls patient lists, consent forms and key records that could narrow down where the wrong embryo was used.
One of the biggest fights is over how to find the child’s biological parents without exposing private medical information about other patients. Lawyers for Score and Mills told the judge they want the clinic to contact its past patients and ask them to consent to genetic testing. The clinic has argued that releasing or discussing medical information beyond a patient’s own records can violate federal privacy rules, unless there is written permission.
Attorneys proposed using an independent third party to handle the testing so names and sensitive details would not be shared unless there is a match. In court, the clinic’s lawyer agreed in principle to a confidential process, saying the sides were aligned on protecting privacy. The details of how that system would work, and how quickly it would start, remained a focus of the hearing.
Lawyers for the parents also described two time windows they say could be “risk pools” for when the mix-up occurred. They pointed to the date of an egg retrieval on March 26, 2020, and to the embryo transfer date of April 5, 2025, as key moments when embryos could have been mislabeled, switched, or otherwise mishandled. The clinic’s attorneys responded that retrieval can involve a multi-day process with many patients, while the transfer date involves an “extremely” small group, a point they said increases the chance that even limited disclosures could identify patients.
In court, the clinic’s attorney said most patients in the earlier pool had been contacted and that the total number involved was fewer than 20, though some had not responded. The clinic’s lawyer said the limited number of people tied to those dates is one reason it did not want to “unload data” in open court without a clear plan for what information would be shared and how it would be protected.
The couple’s lawyers argued the lack of clear numbers has kept the parents in limbo. They asked the court to press for answers on basic steps, such as how many people have been contacted, how many have been asked to consent to testing, whether any results have come back, and when the parents can expect updates. One lawyer told the judge those unknowns have fueled “sleepless nights” for the family.
The couple’s attorneys also raised concerns about a remaining embryo that is still stored at the clinic. They told the court the parents want to regain possession of that embryo but are now unsure whether it is genetically theirs. They said confirming an embryo’s genetics can require thawing it for testing, which can add risk. The parents’ legal team indicated they would prefer testing be done by another facility rather than by the clinic they are suing.
Beyond the family’s immediate crisis, the case has drawn attention because embryo mix-ups can raise hard questions about parentage, custody, and medical oversight. Score and Mills have said publicly that they want a process that protects privacy while giving the child’s genetic parents a real chance to come forward. Their lawyers have emphasized they are not currently seeking names in public filings and instead want a confidential match process that alerts the right families without exposing anyone else.
The judge signaled frustration with the pace of progress, saying the court had not seen deadlines met and that it remained unclear whether all people in an initial stage of categorization had been identified and whether a waiver form inviting patients to participate in testing had been completed. The judge ordered weekly status conferences to track next steps and said the defense must comply with discovery by Feb. 23.
For now, the child remains with Score and Mills as the legal case continues, with the next updates expected in the court’s weekly check-ins and in the discovery exchange due later this month. The judge noted concern that there could be another child linked to the transfer process whose situation is not yet fully understood.
Author note: Last updated February 18, 2026.