Gibbs v. Ernst
| Decision Date | 13 September 1994 |
| Citation | 647 A.2d 882,538 Pa. 193 |
| Parties | Frank A. GIBBS, Jayne C. Gibbs and Michael Gibbs, a Minor v. Paul ERNST, Marsha A. Hiester, Concern Professional Services for Children and R. Nancy Haley, Brenda Messa, Northampton County Children and Youth Division. Appeal of CONCERN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH, Paul Ernst and Marsha S. Hiester. Frank A. GIBBS, Jayne C. Gibbs and Michael J. Gibbs, a Minor v. Paul ERNST, Marsha A. Hiester, Concern Professional Services for Children and Youth and R. Nancy Haley, Brenda Messa, Northampton County Children & Youth Division. Appeal of NORTHAMPTON COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH, R. Nancy Haley and Brenda Messa. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Preston W. Moritz, Nazareth, for Northampton Co. Sol.
Samuel C. Totaro, Jr., Bensalem, for F., J. & M. Gibbs.
Edwin L. Scherlis, B. Alan Dash, and Donald M. Davis, Philadelphia, for Concerned Prof. Services for Children and Youth.
Craig B. Bluestein, Jenkintown, for Amicus, American Academy of Adoption Attys.
Before NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS, CAPPY, CASTILLE, and MONTEMURO, JJ.
This is an appeal by Concern Professional Services for Children and Youth; Concern's Director, Paul Ernst; Concern Adoption Specialist, Marsha S. Hiester (hereinafter collectively Concern); and Northampton County Children and Youth; its Executive Director, R. Nancy Haley; and its Caseworker, Brenda Messa (hereinafter collectively Children and Youth) from an Order of the Commonwealth Court reversing the trial court's grant of demurrers to counts of Wrongful Adoption and Negligent Placement of Adoptive Child in the complaint filed by appellees Frank A. and Jayne Gibbs, and Michael J. Gibbs.
Appellees initiated this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County against Concern and Children and Youth arising out of the adoption of Michael J. Gibbs on October 21, 1985. Children and Youth is an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and, pursuant to law, is responsible for placing children who are wards of the Commonwealth with agencies for the purposes of adoption. Concern is a private child placement agency, licensed by the Commonwealth.
The sole issue presented before this Court is whether the law of the Commonwealth recognizes as causes of action Wrongful Adoption and Negligent Placement of Adoptive Child. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part the decision of the Commonwealth Court and hold that traditional common law causes of action sounding in fraud and negligence apply in the adoption context.
The Complaint alleges the following facts: in early 1983, appellees Jayne and Frank Gibbs, who were already foster parents, inquired of Concern about the availability of a healthy Caucasian infant for adoption, (Complaint at p 10) and were informed that there was a two year waiting list for healthy Caucasian infants. Appellees were actively encouraged by agency representatives to apply for the adoption of an older child, (Complaint at p 11) and were told that it would be easier to adopt a "hard to adopt due to age" child, and that if the child had been physically or sexually abused, Concern would disclose fully the history of these occurrences. (Complaint at p 12). Appellees were invited to look through a book containing photographs of older children available for adoption, along with brief positive descriptions of the children. (Complaint at p 13).
In May of 1983, appellees submitted a dual application for adoption of a healthy Caucasian infant and a "hard to adopt due to age" child. (Complaint at p 14). After a home-study by Marsha Hiester, Concern's adoption specialist, appellees reviewed the book of waiting children approximately twice a month at Concern's offices. On each occasion they completed a form for the child they wanted to adopt, and on each occasion they specifically requested a child who was "hard to place due to age," but who had no history of sexual or physical abuse or any mental or emotional problems. (Complaint at p 17).
In late August or early September 1984, appellees were informed by Concern that they had been chosen to adopt Michael, a five year old boy from Northampton County. (Complaint at p 18). 1 In addition to his age appellees were told by Concern that Michael was presently repeating kindergarten, that he was Caucasian, and that he had been in foster care, but for only two years and only with one family. (Complaint at p 19). Appellees were further informed by Concern that Michael was hyperactive, behind in his school work, had been verbally abused by his mother and that the major problem was neglect by his mother. Concern specifically denied any history of physical or sexual abuse. (Complaint at p 20). In October of 1984, appellees were introduced to Michael and his caseworkers at Concern. They were given information about Michael's foster family, and were once again informed by Concern that there was no history of sexual or physical abuse. (Complaint at p 22). Later that same afternoon, appellees met with Brenda Messa, a caseworker at Children and Youth's offices in Easton, Pennsylvania where they requested a more detailed social and medical history of Michael. (Complaint at p 25).
During the first weekend of November, 1984, Michael was placed for adoption with appellees who filed a Report of Intention to Adopt with the Orphan's Court of Berks County. (Complaint at pp 27-28). Shortly thereafter, Concern forwarded certain documents identified as Michael's medical file, consisting of records of Michael's birth and the medical history of his natural mother. Appellees once again requested more information about Michael's psychological and emotional history. (Complaint at p 29).
Concern supervised Michael's placement with appellees and, although he had educational problems, Michael seemed much calmer and passed first grade. (Complaint at p 30). In September of 1985, Concern consented to the finalization of the adoption. Prior to finalization, appellees met with Concern and specifically asked whether there was anything in Concern's file that had not been disclosed to them. They were assured by Concern that they had been given everything Children and Youth had provided to Concern; but were told that Children and Youth had "promised additional information," and that there was a "communication problem" with Children and Youth. Concern agreed to check all records to make sure everything was made available to appellees prior to the finalization of the adoption. (Complaint at p 31).
On October 21, 1985, a final order was entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County granting the adoption of Michael J. Gibbs. (Complaint at p 32). Immediately thereafter, Michael began experiencing severe emotional problems. (Complaint at p 33). He became violent and aggressive toward younger children, attempting to amputate the arm of a five year old (Complaint at p 34); attempting to suffocate his younger cousin (Complaint at p 35); attempting to kill another cousin by hitting him over the head with a lead pipe (Complaint at p 36); deliberately placing Clorox in a cleaning solution causing Ms. Gibbs to burn her hands badly (Complaint at p 38); and starting a fire which seriously injured a younger cousin (Complaint at p 40).
After Michael's admission and evaluation at the Philadelphia Child Guidance Center, appellees were advised that little chance existed of any change in his violent behavior. (Complaint at p 32). Michael's conduct deteriorated further, and he was admitted to a special program for adopted children at the Northwestern Institute where he remained until he was transferred by court order to the Eastern State School and Hospital. (Complaint at pp 42-44). On or about September 15, 1989, Michael was declared dependent by the Family Division of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and was placed in the custody of the Department of Human Services. (Complaint at p 45).
In September of 1989, a caseworker from the Department of Human Services informed appellees for the first time that Michael had been severely abused, both physically and sexually as a young child. (Complaint at p 46). Records in the possession of Northwestern Institute revealed that Michael had been in ten different foster placements before he was freed for adoption; that during his first six years Michael's mother repeatedly placed him in and then removed him from foster care; that there was a long, serious history of abuse, both physical and sexual, by his biological parents; that Michael had been neglected by his biological mother; that Michael had an extensive history of aggressiveness and hostility towards other children; and that Michael's mother at one time attempted to cut off his penis. (Complaint at 47). At no time prior to the finalization of the adoption did Concern or Children and Youth disclose this information although it was in their possession and had been requested. (Complaint at p 48).
In April of 1990, appellees commenced this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, setting forth in Count I of their complaint a cause of action for Wrongful Adoption and in Count II a cause of action for Negligent Placement of Adoptive Child. Appellants, Concern and Children and Youth, filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer to these counts which the trial court granted. The Commonwealth Court reversed, Gibbs v. Concern Professional Services, 150 Pa.Commw. 154, 160, 615 A.2d 851, 854 (1991), and in June of 1993, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sodexomagic, LLC v. Drexel Univ. Sodexomagic, LLC
...Justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation; and(6) A resulting injury proximately caused by such reliance.See Gibbs v. Ernst , 538 Pa. 193, 647 A.2d 882, 889 & n.12 (1994) ; Youndt v. First Nat'l Bank of Port Allegany , 868 A.2d 539, 545 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). To prevail, a fraud plainti......
-
Jordan v. City of Philadelphia, Civ.A. 99-0016.
...§ 46, cmt. h. See also Gibbs v. Ernst, 150 Pa.Cmwlth. 154, 164, 615 A.2d 851, 856 (1992), rev'd, in part, on other grounds, 538 Pa. 193, 647 A.2d 882 (1994) (finding that determination of whether defendants' failure to disclose vital negative information about plaintiffs constituted outrage......
-
Hyde Athletic Industries v. Continental Cas. Co.
...that a statement be "made falsely, with knowledge of its falsity or recklessness as to whether it is true or false." Gibbs v. Ernst, 538 Pa. 193, 647 A.2d 882, 889 (1994). Plaintiffs have presented the court with no evidence that the insurers knew or were reckless about the veracity of thei......
-
City of Rome v. Glanton
...absent some duty to speak. Duquesne Light Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 66 F.3d 604, 611-12 (3d Cir.1995); Gibbs v. Ernst, 538 Pa. 193, 647 A.2d 882, 889 n. 12 (1994); In re Estate of Evasew, 526 Pa. 98, 584 A.2d 910, 913 (1990). A duty to speak arises when one party is in a fiduciary......
-
Admonitions or Accountability?: U.S. Implementation of the Hague Adoption Convention Requirements for the Collection and Disclosure of Medical and Social History of Transnationally Adopted Children
...(finding adopted children whose histories were allegedly not disclosed inflicted physical injuries upon adoptive parents); Gibbs v. Ernst, 647 A.2d 882, 885 (Pa. 1994) (relating allegations that adopted child attempted to amputate another child’s arm and suffocate his cousin, assaulted anot......