Burr v. Board of County Commissioners
56 A.L.R. 4th 357, 23 Ohio St. 3d 69, 491 N.E.2d 1101 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An adoption agency can be held liable under a tort action for fraud, known as 'wrongful adoption,' when it deliberately makes material misrepresentations of fact concerning a child's background and health, and the adoptive parents justifiably rely on these misrepresentations to their detriment.
Facts:
- In 1964, Mr. and Mrs. Burr sought to adopt a child from the Stark County Welfare Department.
- The agency possessed records indicating the infant, Patrick, was at risk for low intelligence and disease, and that his parents were institutionalized mental patients.
- The agency affirmatively represented to the Burrs that Patrick was a 'nice, big, healthy baby boy' and provided a false background story about his birth mother being a young, unwed woman.
- Relying on these representations, the Burrs proceeded with the adoption.
- Over many years, Patrick developed severe mental and physical health problems, requiring extensive and costly care.
- In November 1982, a probate court unsealed Patrick's adoption records for medical purposes, at which point the Burrs discovered the agency's misrepresentations about his background and health risks.
Procedural Posture:
- The Burrs (plaintiffs) filed a complaint for 'wrongful adoption' based on fraud against the Board of County Commissioners of Stark County (defendants) in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the Burrs, awarding them $125,000 in damages.
- The defendants appealed the judgment to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The defendants (appellants) then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, and the Burrs are 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 an adoption agency commit actionable fraud when it deliberately makes material misrepresentations about a child's background and health, thereby inducing a couple to adopt the child to their detriment?
Opinions:
Majority - Celebrezze, C.J.
Yes. An adoption agency commits actionable fraud when it makes deliberate, material misrepresentations about a child's history that induce adoption to the parents' detriment. The court applied the standard six-part test for fraud and found that the agency knowingly made false, material statements (e.g., that the baby was healthy) with the intent to mislead the Burrs. The Burrs' testimony that they would not have adopted had they known the truth established justifiable reliance and proximate cause for their injuries. The court rejected the agency's defenses, holding that sovereign immunity does not shield a county from the fraudulent acts of its employees and that the statute of limitations for fraud does not begin until the fraud is actually discovered.
Concurring - Locher, J.
Concurred in judgment only. (The text of this opinion was not provided in the case document.)
Dissenting - Holmes, J. and Wright, J.
Dissented. (The text of this opinion was not provided in the case document.)
Analysis:
This landmark decision establishes the tort of 'wrongful adoption' in Ohio, grounding it in the common law principles of fraud. It holds that public adoption agencies, despite their governmental status, are not immune from liability for their intentional torts. The court carefully distinguishes between a mere failure to disclose all potential risks, which is not actionable, and the active, deliberate misrepresentation of material facts. This ruling created a new avenue for relief for adoptive parents harmed by agency deceit and established a duty of honesty for adoption agencies, influencing how they manage and share information with prospective parents.
