M.H. v. Caritas Family Services,
488 N.W.2d 282 (1992).


Facts: M.H. and J.L.H. (Ps), the adoptive parents of C.H., filed a suit against Caritas Family Services (D), alleging that D made intentional and negligent misrepresentations to them during C.H.'s placement for adoption about his family background, including failing to disclose the fact that C.H.'s biological parents were brother and sister. The trial court denied D's summary judgment on grounds that a negligent misrepresentation action was not against public policy but certified the question to the appellate court, granted D's summary judgment as to intentional misrepresentation, and denied Ps' motion to add the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment as to the issue of negligent misrepresentation, reinstated Ps' claim for intentional misrepresentation, and granted Ps' motion to add intentional infliction of emotional distress. D appeals.

Issue: Does public policy preclude an action for negligent misrepresentation against an adoption agency?

Rule: Public policy does not preclude an action for negligent misrepresentation against an adoption agency.


Holding: No. Adoption agencies have a legal duty not to mislead prospective adoptive parents by partially disclosing the truth when they have undertaken to dis¬close the truth. The adoptive parents need this information to provide appro-priate medical care and to make other important family decisions. This duty imposes no extraordinary burden on adoption agencies. It also would not discourage adoptions or conflict with confidentiality policies.

Analysis:The adoptive parents accused the adoption agency of incompletely disclosing that the adopted child was the product of incest. The lower courts found that public policy did not preclude an action for negligent misrepresentation during the placement of a child in adoption proceedings. On appeal, the court held that, where the adoption agency undertook to disclose that the child had incest in its background, the adoptive parents could maintain their claim that the adoption agency negligently withheld information in such a way that the adoptive parents were misled as to the truth.The court also held that the adoptive parents alleged insufficient facts to support a finding that the adoption agency showed a deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others required to recover punitive damages.