Birth Mother v. Adoptive Parents
118 Nev. 972, 118 Nev. Adv. Rep. 97, 59 P.3d 1233 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Post-adoption communication agreements between birth parents and adoptive parents are unenforceable in Nevada without specific statutory provisions allowing for their enforcement, as state law generally terminates natural parental rights upon the entry of an adoption decree.
Facts:
- Prior to relinquishing custody of her child, the birth mother executed a document with New Hope Child and Family Agency (New Hope), titled 'Agreement Regarding Communication With And/Or Contact Between Birth Parents, Child Adoptee, and Adoptive Parents' (communication agreement).
- The communication agreement stipulated ongoing contact, including phone calls, pictures, letters detailing the child's progress, and visits on the child's first three birthdays, between the birth mother and the child after adoption.
- With New Hope's assistance, the birth mother selected the adoptive parents, who subsequently signed the communication agreement, agreeing to abide by its terms.
- The birth mother then relinquished her parental rights and consented to the adoption.
- The adoptive parents initially complied with the communication agreement after the child was placed in their custody.
- The birth mother later filed a motion objecting to the adoption and demanding that the adoptive parents return the child to her.
- Following the birth mother's attempt to object to the adoption, the adoptive parents ceased allowing her contact with the child.
Procedural Posture:
- The adoptive parents filed a petition in district court (trial court) to adopt the child.
- The birth mother filed a motion in district court objecting to the adoption and demanding the child's return, which the district court denied.
- The district court granted the adoptive parents' petition and entered an adoption decree for the child.
- The birth mother subsequently filed a complaint in district court against the adoptive parents and New Hope, alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of good faith and fair dealing, interference with contractual relations, emotional distress, and misrepresentation, seeking specific performance or monetary damages.
- The adoptive parents and New Hope filed a motion to dismiss the birth mother's complaint.
- The district court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the adoption decree was the final document governing the adoption, and since it did not refer to the communication agreement, no relief was available under the agreement, consistent with NRS 127.160.
- The birth mother appealed the district court's judgment granting the motion to dismiss to the Supreme Court of Nevada, where she was the appellant and the adoptive parents and New Hope were the appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a private post-adoption communication agreement, which is not incorporated into the adoption decree, create enforceable contractual rights for a birth parent to maintain continued contact with an adopted child, given Nevada statutes that terminate natural parental rights upon adoption?
Opinions:
Majority - Shearing, J.
No, a post-adoption communication agreement not incorporated into the adoption decree does not create enforceable contractual rights for a birth parent to have continued contact with an adopted child. The court held that while NAC 127.210(4)(c) permits child-placing agencies to offer open adoptions, Nevada lacks specific statutory provisions for the enforcement of such agreements. Without such a specific provision, the agreement between the birth mother and the adoptive parents is unenforceable. The court emphasized that NRS 127.160 clearly states that upon entry of an adoption order, a child becomes the legal child of the adoptive parents, and the natural parents are relieved of all parental responsibilities and shall not exercise any rights over the adopted child unless provided for in the adoption decree. Enforcing a private agreement for contact would be inconsistent with the Legislature’s mandate regarding the termination of natural parental rights. Despite acknowledging the unfortunate situation for birth parents who consent to adoption based on such agreements, the court concluded that it could not enforce the agreement until the Legislature mandates otherwise.
Dissenting - Rose, J.
Yes, the contract allowing the birth mother continued contact with the adopted child should be enforceable. Justice Rose argued that the majority's decision inappropriately abrogates the birth mother's freedom to contract, a principle courts should uphold unless absolutely necessary. He noted that NAC 127.210(4)(c) authorizes child-placing agencies to offer open adoptions, and NRS 127.160 does not explicitly prohibit such agreements, suggesting that Nevada law permits, rather than forbids, these agreements. Furthermore, Justice Rose found it patently unfair for a biological parent to agree to an adoption based on a promise of continued contact, only for that agreement to be rendered unenforceable upon the adoption's approval. He concluded that fairness and freedom to contract justify the enforcement of the continued contact agreement.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Maupin, J.
No, an agreement allowing post-adoption contact between birth parents and an adopted child is unenforceable under the circumstances of this case, and critically, a district court entering an adoption decree cannot render such an agreement enforceable by incorporation. Justice Maupin concurred with the majority that such agreements are unenforceable under NRS 127.160, which divests birth parents of all rights to the relinquished child upon entry of an adoption decree. However, he disagreed with any implication that a district court could create enforceability by incorporating the agreement into the formal decree of adoption, arguing that such an act would also violate the public policy statement embodied in NRS 127.160. He concluded that only the Legislature has the power to change this, not the parties or a district court.
Analysis:
This case establishes a clear precedent in Nevada regarding the unenforceability of private post-adoption contact agreements not explicitly mandated by statute. It reinforces the legal finality of adoption decrees under NRS 127.160, emphasizing the complete termination of natural parental rights and duties unless otherwise specified in the decree. The decision places the onus on the Legislature to create specific statutory mechanisms for enforcing open adoption agreements, potentially influencing future legislative efforts and agency practices regarding how such agreements are presented and handled to birth parents. It also serves as a cautionary tale for birth parents who consent to adoption based on informal contact agreements, highlighting the need for clear legal provisions for any continued contact.
