Wyatt v. McDermott, 283 Va. 685

District court certified questions of law to Virginia Supreme Court on whether Virginia recognizes tortious interference with parental rights and the elements.
Wyatt seeks monetary damages for an unauthorized adoption of his child E.Z. by the Zarembinskis and others involved in an Act of Love adoption arrangement.
Fahland, Wyatt's child's mother, and others allegedly induced relinquishment and concealed birth and adoption plans with McDermott's involvement; Wyatt was kept in the dark.
Adoption proceedings occurred in Utah; Virginia juvenile court granted Wyatt custody while Utah courts awarded custody to the adoptive parents; custody remained unresolved at certification.
Wyatt alleged multiple tort theories; the district court denied dismissal for tortious interference with parental rights pending Virginia’s ruling; the Virginia court proceeded to address the certified questions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Virginia recognize tortious interference with parental rights?	Wyatt contends the common law recognizes the tort to protect parental rights.	Defendants argue no Virginia action exists; legislature has not enacted such a civil remedy.	Yes, Virginia recognizes the tort at common law.
What are the elements and burden of proof for the tort?	Wyatt asserts a traditional entitlement to damages including loss of companionship and costs.	Defendants contend the elements are unsettled and not defined by statute.	Elements: (1) parental right; (2) intentional interference by a third party; (3) harm; (4) damages; burden by preponderance.
Should public policy or legislative action constrain recognition of the tort?	Wyatt argues judicial recognition is appropriate where legislative action has not addressed civil liability for interference.	Defendants urge deference to legislature; policy concerns weigh against judicial creation of the tort.	Court recognizes tort and reserves policy considerations to the General Assembly (not to courts) for further action.

Chaves v. Johnson, 230 Va. 112, 335 S.E.2d 97 (1985) (1985) (recognized common-law tort of interference with contract rights (relevant analogue))
Kessel v. Leavitt, 204 W.Va. 95, 511 S.E.2d 720 (1998) (1998) (model for elements; discusses substantial equal rights defense and public policy considerations)
Stone v. Wall, 734 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1999) (1999) (endorses custodial interference as a modern evolution of custodial rights remedy)
Khalifa v. Shannon, 945 A.2d 1244 (Md. 2008) (2008) (persuasive authority: loss of services not required; emphasizes evolving common law damages)