Chapter 17 - what Paul Kent did with Emily’s question
Paul Kent was no longer working as a private investigator.
His license had been suspended during the Fairmont inquiry.
He now lived in Florida and communicated only through counsel.
His original defense had been simple.
Emily hired him.
He reviewed the claim.
He believed it was likely fraudulent.
He reported that conclusion.
Incomplete work.
Biased work.
Professionally compromised work.
But not, he insisted, intentional concealment.
The Northbridge log changed that.
Rebecca obtained his service agreement with Fairmont’s insurer.
Kent had performed “claim-risk screening.”
When complaints involving donor identity appeared, he checked whether the person contacting the clinic had enough documentation to create litigation exposure.
Emily’s inquiry matched Natalie’s name.
Mara’s birth year.
Ryan’s donor history.
Kent recognized the connection.
He did not tell Emily.
Instead, he entered a notification into Northbridge.
POTENTIAL PATERNAL DISCOVERY.
Ryan attended Kent’s deposition by video.
Natalie chose not to.
She had already spent enough hours listening to strangers explain why they had not told her the truth about her own treatment.
Kent’s lawyer began:
“My client did not have authority to disclose confidential patient information to Mrs. Mercer.”
Rebecca answered:
“Nobody asked whether he should give Emily Natalie’s medical file.”
Kent stared at the table.
Rebecca continued.
“You told Emily the allegation appeared to be a scam.”
“Yes.”
“Did you know Natalie Bell was a real Fairmont patient?”
“Yes.”
“Did you know Ryan Mercer’s donor material had been used in her treatment?”
“I knew there was a possible match.”
“Possible?”
“The internal record had not been independently verified.”
“Did you tell Emily that?”
“No.”
“Why?”
Kent exhaled.
“Because Fairmont’s insurer instructed us not to confirm donor substitutions until legal review.”
“Then why not tell her you could not verify the claim?”
He looked uncomfortable.
“I should have.”
“That isn’t what you did.”
“No.”
“You told her it looked fraudulent.”
“Yes.”
“Did you report her inquiry?”
“Yes.”
“To Fairmont?”
“Through the insurer.”
“To Northbridge?”
“The system automatically generated a risk entry.”
Rebecca displayed the email.
Kent to claims director:
Spouse appears motivated to disprove paternity allegation. Low immediate litigation risk if claimant lacks direct access to donor.
Ryan’s jaw tightened.
Emily had not seen the email before.
She was not in the deposition room.
Ryan was grateful.
Not because she deserved protection from consequences.
Because Kent’s view of her had been manipulative too.
He saw grief.
Fear.
A wife desperate to believe a letter was false.
And labeled that emotional state useful.
Rebecca asked:
“What happened after your report?”
Kent said he did not know.
Northbridge did.
Mara’s outcome file received a new instruction.
NO PROACTIVE PATERNAL CONTACT.
Natalie had already been trying to reach Ryan.
Fairmont had no policy requiring proactive paternal contact anyway.
But the instruction mattered because an internal remediation team had begun reviewing Continuity cases.
Mara’s file was removed from the first notification batch.
The reason:
ACTIVE IDENTITY DISPUTE.
Ryan stared.
“Whose dispute?”
Kent answered:
“Your wife had challenged the claim.”
“My wife was not Natalie’s co-patient.”
“No.”
“She was not my donor-consent attorney.”
“No.”
“She did not have authority over whether Fairmont corrected Natalie’s records.”
“No.”
Yet Emily’s doubt became administrative justification for delay.
Four additional months.
Exactly what Natalie later told her.
Emily had not created Fairmont’s silence.
The system had exploited it.
The internal reviewer who approved the delay was named Claudia Wynn.
Former Fairmont compliance director.
Now chief operating officer of Northbridge.
Rebecca’s expression changed when she found that.
“She moved from the clinic to the analytics company?”
“Three years before the scandal.”
Kent nodded.
“Northbridge recruited several Fairmont people.”
“Did Wynn know about Continuity?”
Kent requested a break.
When he returned, he answered.
“Yes.”
“How much?”
“She knew priority donors existed.”
“Substitution without patient consent?”
“I don’t know what she knew when.”
“Did she know Ryan withdrew?”
“Yes.”
“Did she know the material remained active?”
“Yes.”
Ryan leaned toward the screen.
“Why is she running a pediatric outcomes company?”
Kent looked at him.
“I don’t know.”
The answer was probably true.
That was almost worse.
Northbridge issued a statement.
Its current operations complied with applicable law.
Historical Fairmont data had been inherited through legacy contracts.
The company was cooperating.
No evidence suggested current employees were secretly adding children to the old registry.
Ryan read the statement twice.
Then called Rebecca.
“Do you believe them?”
“Belief is not useful yet.”
“Do we have evidence the tracking stopped?”
“We have evidence the Fairmont crosswalk stopped receiving new entries eighteen months ago.”
“That’s not the same.”
“No.”
An independent forensic audit began.
Natalie received Mara’s entire identifiable Northbridge file before Ryan did.
That was correct.
She was Mara’s primary parent.
She reviewed it with a pediatric privacy attorney.
Then called Ryan.
“They have her hearing test.”
Ryan froze.
Mara hated loud hand dryers because certain sounds overwhelmed her.
He remembered learning that as a father.
Northbridge knew it years earlier as a data point.
“What else?”
“Her first emergency-room visit. Vaccines. Growth charts. A speech screening when she was three.”
“School?”
“One kindergarten screening.”
Ryan closed his eyes.
“Did you consent to any of it?”
“Some records were generated through systems that could lawfully use deidentified information for quality analysis.”
“But they reidentified it.”
“Yes.”
That was the central problem.
Natalie continued.
“They also have something wrong.”
“What?”
“Mara is listed as having a paternal family history of early colon cancer.”
Ryan frowned.
“No.”
“My father died of pancreatic cancer at seventy-two.”
“I know.”
“Your family?”
“No early colon cancer.”
“Exactly.”
The Continuity Registry had attached the medical history of the donor Natalie originally selected.
The engineer she had consented to.
Not Ryan.
Mara’s pediatric profile contained the wrong paternal family history.
For years.
Natalie’s voice became tight.
“I gave that information to her doctor.”
Ryan stopped breathing.
“What happened?”
“Nothing catastrophic.”
She said it immediately.
“The doctor just recommended earlier future screening discussion. She’s seven. It hasn’t harmed her.”
“Still.”
“Yes.”
Still.
The danger of a wrong donor was not only identity.
It was medicine.
The family of Ryan’s anonymous biological son had requested corrected medical information for exactly that reason.
Ryan’s profile would be supplied through an independent genetic counselor.
No names.
No contact.
Ryan agreed immediately.
Then Natalie said:
“There’s another field.”
Ryan waited.
“Sibling outcome comparison.”
His stomach turned.
Mara had been compared against another child carrying Ryan’s donor code.
The anonymous boy.
No identity appeared.
Only code B-4.
Northbridge had been using two children who did not know each other as a biological comparison pair.
May you like
Neither family had agreed.
👉 Mara’s secret medical file showed Northbridge had been comparing her health against Ryan’s other biological child while both families believed their records were private.
Related Stories
