Abigail Fredericksen v. Jennifer Olsen, Esq., in Her Individual Capacity Jennifer Olsen, Esq., in Her Capacity as the Court Appointed Guardian and Custodian of Plaintiff's Infant Daughter, Acting Under Color of State Law A.M. and B.M., a Married Couple
15-0779
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2016Background
- Abigail Fredericksen (biological mother) placed her child for adoption in Feb 2012 after consulting with attorney Jennifer Olsen and prospective adoptive parents A.M. and B.M.; Fredericksen sought an "open adoption" (ongoing contact).
- Olsen prepared a "hospital adoption plan" and obtained Fredericksen’s signed release of custody on Feb 20, 2012, which included a 96-hour revocation window and warned a petition to terminate parental rights would follow.
- Olsen, as guardian/custodian, filed a termination petition on Feb 24; the juvenile court terminated Fredericksen’s parental rights on March 6, 2012; Fredericksen did not attend the hearing.
- Fredericksen alleges A.M. and B.M. initially agreed to an open adoption but later cut off contact, and that Olsen gave incorrect advice on April 2, 2012 that the child could not be returned without the father’s consent — effectively preventing timely vacatur under the 30-day statutory window.
- Fredericksen sued (malpractice, civil conspiracy to commit fraudulent inducement, tortious interference with custody, and as-applied constitutional challenge); the district court granted summary judgment for Olsen and A.M./B.M.; the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed malpractice dismissal, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal malpractice (Olsen) | Olsen’s negligent advice/inaction caused loss of parental rights by preventing timely vacatur of termination order | Any attorney breach did not proximately cause the loss because Fredericksen could have obtained new counsel and pursue relief later | Reversed for trial: genuine issue whether Olsen’s advice/inaction precluded vacatur within 30-day window and thus caused harm |
| Civil conspiracy to commit fraudulent inducement (Olsen) | Olsen joined others to induce Fredericksen to consent | Claim not pleaded; cannot be added at summary judgment stage | Affirmed: claim not pled against Olsen; dismissal proper |
| Civil conspiracy / fraudulent inducement (A.M. & B.M.) | A.M./B.M. falsely promised enforceable open adoption to induce release | Fredericksen was told open-adoption promises aren’t enforceable; reliance was unjustified | Affirmed: reliance unreasonable as promises were known to be unenforceable; conspiracy claim fails |
| Tortious interference with custody (all defendants) | Taking the child was wrongful because consent was procured by fraud, so tort applies | Fredericksen consented via release; no actionable abduction | Affirmed: because fraudulent-inducement claims fail, consent stands and tortious interference claim fails |
| As-applied constitutional challenge | Termination was invalid because waiver of parental rights was not knowing and voluntary due to fraud | Fredericksen received written notices and warnings; revocation procedures were explained; waiver was voluntary | Affirmed: court finds waiver knowing/voluntary; no unconstitutional application of Iowa Code ch. 600A |
Key Cases Cited
- Vossoughi v. Polaschek, 859 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa 2015) (standard for legal malpractice requiring proof of breach and causation)
- Ruden v. Jenk, 543 N.W.2d 605 (Iowa 1996) (attorney negligence not proximate cause if successor counsel retained while action still timely)
- Gibson v. ITT Hartford Ins. Co., 621 N.W.2d 388 (Iowa 2001) (elements of fraudulent inducement claim)
- Wolf v. Wolf, 690 N.W.2d 887 (Iowa 2005) (elements of tortious interference with custody)
- In re Adoption of B.J.H., 564 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 1997) (vacatur of adoption decree for extrinsic fraud requires best interests analysis)
- Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (de novo review of constitutional issues in summary judgment context)
- In re B.G.C., 496 N.W.2d 239 (Iowa 1992) (parental relationship is a fundamental liberty interest)