Natural Mother's Ability to Sue for Damages After Adoption

Published Date Written by Erik L. Smith

Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 2006-Ohio-2221 (1st Dist.)


A woman's suit against an Archdiocese for allegedly coercing her into surrendering her child for adoption 40 years before was not barred by the statute of limitations.



In 1965, the natural mother, a minor and devout Catholic, allegedly conceived a child with her parish priest. The mother's complaint alleged the following: Throughout the pregnancy, a nun, who was also the mother's teacher, pressured the mother to surrender the child for adoption and to keep silent about the father's identity. The nun also told the mother that the child could never be baptized or cleansed of original sin absent adoption. The nun continuously told the mother that the pregnancy was solely the mother's fault for which adoption was a necessary penance. The priest in turn told the mother that she had to surrender the child for adoption because he would lose his priesthood if the church had to pay child support for 18 years. Heeding the priest and nun's words, the mother surrendered the child for adoption. Consequently, the mother allegedly suffered emotional and mental anguish for years.


The mother sued the Archdiocese for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with familial relations, loss of consortium (loss of company and affection of family member), breach of fiduciary duty (breach of special trust relationship), and negligent supervision and retention (of employees). The trial court found the suit barred by the statute of limitations. The mother appealed, arguing that the doctrine of equitable estoppel defeated the statute of limitations defense.



Equitable estoppel applies where the defendant makes a misleading factual representation, inducing actual and reasonable reliance by, and causing detriment to, the relying party. In the statute of limitations context, the plaintiff must effectively allege that the defendant either misrepresented the limitations period, promised a better settlement of the claim should plaintiff not sue, or engaged in similar misleading conduct.



Did the mother effectively allege equitable estoppel so that she may pursue her claims?





(1) The allegations that the Archdiocese intimidated the mother into believing that the pregnancy was solely her fault, pressured her into surrendering the child, and coerced her into believing the child could not otherwise be baptized, effectively alleged that the priest and nun's statements were misleading factual misrepresentations.


(2) The complaint alleged that the statements were made solely to coerce the mother into foregoing the best interests of her and her child and that the statements resulted in the mother losing her parental rights--which were detriments and conduct inducing her to delay bringing her claim.


(3) The First Amendment did not defeat the suit because it could be reasonably inferred from the mother's complaint that the Archdiocese's actions were motivated by the secular purpose of protecting the church and its pecuniary interests rather than by a reliance on, or furtherance of, the church's religious beliefs.


NOTE: The court ultimately held that the mother could not pursue her claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress, loss of consortium, and negligent supervision/retention because, respectively, the mother did not witness a "sudden traumatizing event," the child did not suffer physical injury, and the mother did not allege that the Archdiocese could have foreseen its employee's behavior before the behavior occurred. But the mother did state pursuable claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, interference with familial relationships, and breach of fiduciary duty. The mother would still need to prove all of her allegations at trial. I do not know whether the case has been appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Ohio Putative Father Registry–the WHAT?

I am a single man. Yet I had been in Ohio for over a year before hearing of the Ohio Putative Father Registry, and then only in a Probate Law class. The professor was covering how a child could be adopted without the birth father's consent. "ORC 3701.061: A man who has sexual intercourse with a woman is on notice that if a child is born as a result and the man is the putative father, the child may be adopted without his consent pursuant to division (B) of section 3107 of the Revised Code." That section required the man sign the Putative Father Registry within thirty days after the birth to get notice of the adoption.


Ohio Putative Father Registry: The Basics

Unwed fathers are entitled to notice of petitions to adopt their biological children. Yet many fathers lose this right by not registering timely with the Ohio putative father registry (PFR).1R.C. 3107.062. Because adoptions are probate proceedings, lawyers practicing juvenile, domestic relations, or traditional probate law may not understand how the Ohio PFR applies.  At initial consultations then, attorneys may omit counseling fathers about the registry and refer them to attorneys with more specialized experience. But the strict registration deadline, and often unknown deadline date, demand that the father register immediately. Thus the attorney should consider counseling the client about the PFR and help him register that day before referring him. This article gives the information needed to do that.

Preventing Your Infant Child From Being Adopted Without Your Consent


Consult an adoption law or family law attorney. Otherwise: An unwed father has no absolute right to veto an adoption. You must take action to preserve your rights. Whether the mother is considering adoption or not, an unwed father should, as soon as possible and preferably before the birth:

Disclaimer: The information on the website is not intended to be a source of solicitation or legal advice, the results obtained in any legal matter discussed in any articles or examples are not typical. The information discussed on this website should not be construed as a certain result will occur in a similar situation, the reader should not rely on the information on this site as the sole source of information to make a legal-hiring decision. The reader should not consider the information on this website to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act or decline to act based on the content from this site, and should instead contact an attorney or other appropriate professional. Articles and information on this website may discuss law in multiple jurisdictions, as laws and regulations differ from one jurisdiction to another, it is important to discuss your particular situation with an attorney in the jurisdiction where your legal matter exist. Erik Smith does not represent that he has any particular expertise in any area of law. You may email Erik Smith, but to the extent allowed by law those communications shall not be treated as privileged unless Erik Smith represents you, as such do not send confidential information until you have established a formal attorney-client relationship with him. Where applicable on this website, you are informed that we are an interactive computer service that enables access by multiple users and should not be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Where applicable Copyright ©2023 Erik L Smith