WYATT V. McDERMOTT 725 S.E.2d 555 (2012) CASE BRIEF

WYATT V. McDERMOTT

725 S.E.2d 555 (2012)

NATURE OF THE CASE: The court certified questions of law concerning whether Virginia recognized tortious interference with parental rights as a cause of action. Wyatt (P) sued McDermott (D) for tortious interference with parental rights as they were involved in the adoption of his child without his knowledge.

FACTS: Wyatt (P), is seeking monetary damages for the unauthorized adoption of his baby, herein referred to as E.Z. E.Z. is the biological daughter of P and Colleen Fahland, who are unmarried residents of Virginia. Prior to E.Z.'s birth, P accompanied Fahland to doctors' appointments and made plans with Fahland to raise their child together. Without P's knowledge, Fahland's parents retained attorney Mark McDermott (D) to arrange for an adoption. While Fahland informed P of her parents' desire that she see an adoption attorney, she assured P that they would raise the baby as a family. Fahland signed a form with D identifying P as the birth father and indicating that he wanted to keep the baby. Fahland offered to provide P's address, but D told her to falsely indicate on the form that the address was unknown to her, which she did. She also signed an agreement in which she requested that the adoptive parents discuss adoption plans with the birth father. P was 'purposely kept in the dark' about this meeting, and Fahland continued to make false statements to P at the urging of D, indicating that she planned to raise the baby with P, with the purpose that he would not take steps to secure his parental rights and prevent the adoption. Fahland informed P about a potential adoption but continued to assure P that she still planned to raise the baby with him. Fahland concealed the fact that she was in labor during the conversation with P, at the direction of D and on behalf of the other defendants. E.Z. was born two weeks early. P was not informed of the birth. Fahland signed an affidavit stating that she had informed P she was working with a Utah adoption agency and an affidavit of paternity identifying P as the father. Despite her full knowledge of his address, she placed question marks as to his contact information on the notarized documents at the urging of D. Thomas and Chandra Zarembinski signed an agreement stating that they were aware that E.Z.'s custody status might be unclear. On February 12, Fahland signed an affidavit of relinquishment and transferred custody to the Zarembinskis, who had travelled to Virginia to pick up the child. P claims all defendants induced Fahland to waive her parental rights knowing that Fahland did not want to relinquish rights to the baby and that P believed he would have parental rights. P initiated proceedings and was ultimately awarded custody by the juvenile and domestic relations court, the Utah courts have awarded custody of E.Z. to the Zarembinskis. P filed an action in the district court against D Jenkins, Wood Jenkins LLP, Act of Love, the Zarembinskis, and Lorraine Moon, the Act of Love employee who facilitated the adoption (collectively, Ds), seeking compensatory and punitive damages for the unauthorized adoption as well as a declaratory judgment under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-611, 94 Stat. 3568-3573, that Virginia had jurisdiction to award custody of the child. P asserted numerous claims, including one for tortious interference with parental rights. The court certified the question whether Virginia recognized tortious interference with parental rights as a cause of action.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner