Coward v. Wellmont Health System
295 Va. 351
Va.2018Background
- Samantha Coward, age 19, gave birth on Jan 19, 2016 and during her hospital stay discussed placing the newborn for adoption; she was prescribed Percocet but the complaint does not allege incapacity from medication.
- Hospital staff gave Coward a phone number for prospective adoptive parents (the Hunleys); Coward called and met them, and verbally agreed to an adoption that day.
- The newborn was transferred to a NICU at another hospital on medical direction; Holston Valley later required a court order or referral to DSS before releasing the child.
- The Hunleys (one of whom was a licensed practical nurse employed by a treating physician) and Coward executed an "Adoption Agreement" and later a Petition and Agreed Order in JDR court transferring sole physical custody to the Hunleys; Coward signed without alleging coercion at the time.
- Coward later revoked consent, sued Hunleys, their attorney (Baker), and medical defendants alleging intentional interference with parental rights; circuit court sustained demurrers as to Baker and medical defendants but overruled as to Synthia Hunley; Coward appeals the dismissals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether medical defendants tortiously interfered with Coward's parental rights | Medical defendants aided or knowingly participated in a scheme (e.g., separating the child, facilitating adoptive contact) that vitiated Coward's consent | Complaint fails to plead that medical defendants knew Coward did not consent or participated in Hunley's alleged coercion or conspiracy | Dismissed: complaint lacks specific allegations that medical defendants acted "with knowledge" that Coward did not consent or that child was kept from her against her will |
| Whether Baker (attorney) tortiously interfered with parental rights | Baker expedited and filed adoption paperwork in violation of statutes and thereby interfered with Coward's rights | Baker prepared and filed agreed petition; no allegation she knew Coward did not consent or used coercion | Dismissed: no allegations Baker knew consent was absent or that she employed coercion; appellate waiver of statutory arguments on brief |
| Whether alleged statements/threats by Hunley vitiate Coward's consent | Hunley's alleged lies/threats (DSS, marijuana in urine) constituted undue influence or duress, so Coward's consent was not voluntary | Defendants argued insufficient or speculative facts to impute Hunley’s conduct to others; consent was given and court process produced an agreed JDR order | Partial: circuit court allowed claim vs. Synthia Hunley to proceed (demurrer overruled) but not against other defendants; this opinion affirms dismissals as to Baker and medical defendants |
| Standard for tortious interference with parental rights under Wyatt/Restatement §700 | Plaintiff argues Wyatt supports imposing liability where third parties cause loss of parental custody via wrongful means | Defendants stress Wyatt (and Restatement) requires knowing interference against parent's will; consent (unless vitiated) defeats the tort | Court: Wyatt requires defendant knew parent did not consent (or consent was vitiated by incapacity, undue influence, or duress); absent such allegations, claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Wyatt v. McDermott, 283 Va. 685 (Va. 2012) (adopted tort of intentional interference with parental rights and applied Restatement § 700 elements)
- Kessel v. Leavitt, 511 S.E.2d 720 (W. Va. 1998) (adopted Restatement § 700 framework for parental interference claims)
- Coutlakis v. CSX Transp., Inc., 293 Va. 212 (Va. 2017) (standard for appellate review of demurrers; accept pleaded facts and reasonable inferences)