Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

Minnesota law is instructive. See generally Mary E. Schwartz, Note, Fraud in the Nursery: Is the Wrongful Adoption Remedy Enough?, 26 Val. U. L. Rev. 807 (1992). Cases seem to agree that adoption agencies may be held liable for damages caused by intentional, affirmative misrepresentations of facts regarding the child to the adopting parents. See, e.g., Michael J. v. County of Los Angeles, 201 Cal. App. 3d 859, 247 Cal. Rptr. 504, 512-13 (Cal. App. 1988) (public policy does not condone concealment or intentional misrepresentation that misleads adopting parents); Burr v. Board of County Comm'rs of Stark County, 23 Ohio St. 3d 69, 491 N.E.2d 1101, 1109 (Ohio 1986) (same). On the other hand, there is agreement that an adoption agency cannot be expected to be 'a guarantor of the infant's future good health' and negligence suits tending to have that effect have been rejected. Richard P. v. Vista Del Mar Child Care Serv., 106 Cal. App. 3d 860, 165 Cal. Rptr. 370, 374 (Cal. App. 1980); see also Foster v. Bass, 575 So. 2d 967, 980 (Miss. 1990). Further there is the question of whether public policy bars actions holding adoption agencies liable for damages ...

Register or login to access full content