## Facts

- A birth mother arranged an adoption through New Hope Child and Family Agency (New Hope), an adoption agency.
- Before relinquishing her parental rights, the birth mother and New Hope signed a written “communication agreement” addressing post-adoption communication and contact, stating the arrangement was in the child’s best interests; the prospective adoptive parents later signed the same agreement.
- The agreement contemplated ongoing contact after adoption, including items such as phone calls, photographs, letters about the child’s progress, and limited visits on or near each of the child’s first three birthdays.
- With New Hope’s help, the birth mother met and selected a couple to adopt the child, then consented to the adoption and relinquished her parental rights.
- The adoptive parents initially complied with the communication agreement.
- The adoptive parents filed a petition for adoption in district court.
- After the petition was filed, the birth mother objected to the adoption and demanded the child’s return.
- Following the objection, the adoptive parents stopped permitting contact and ceased complying with the agreement.
- The district court granted the adoption petition and entered a final adoption decree that did not refer to, incorporate, or enforce the communication agreement.
- The birth mother later sued the adoptive parents (and asserted related allegations involving New Hope), seeking relief based on the alleged breach of the communication agreement.
- The district court dismissed the civil complaint at the pleading stage for failure to state a claim.
- The birth mother appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a pre-adoption agreement for post-adoption contact between a birth parent and adoptive parents is void as against Nevada public policy or barred by Nevada’s adoption statutes.
2. Whether the absence of any reference to the communication agreement in the final adoption decree prevents the birth mother from pursuing a contract claim for breach of that agreement.
3. Whether the birth mother’s complaint alleged sufficient facts to state viable claims (including breach of contract) and therefore should have survived a motion to dismiss.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that post-adoption contact agreements are not categorically void as against public policy in Nevada.
- The court concluded that Nevada’s adoption statutes did not clearly prohibit private post-adoption contact agreements, so the complaint was not barred as a matter of law.
- The court indicated that, while adoption remains final and the child’s welfare controls, the birth mother could pursue contract-based relief that would not disturb the adoption itself (such as damages), and the pleading was sufficient to proceed beyond dismissal.

## Legal Principles

- Adoption is statutory and, upon entry of a final decree, the adoptive parents assume parental rights and duties and the birth parent’s legal relationship to the child is terminated.
- Nevada courts will not declare private agreements void on public-policy grounds absent a clear legislative statement or a strong showing that enforcement would contravene the law.
- Nothing in Nevada’s adoption statutes was read to impose a blanket ban on private post-adoption communication/contact agreements.
- The child’s welfare remains the controlling consideration; courts retain authority to prevent relief that would function as court-ordered visitation or otherwise conflict with the child’s best interests.
- Contract remedies that do not reopen or undo the adoption—such as money damages for an alleged breach—do not necessarily threaten the finality of the adoption decree.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court assumes pleaded facts are true and asks only whether the plaintiff could prove any set of facts that would entitle relief; a properly pleaded written agreement, reliance, performance, and breach can be enough to state a contract claim.

## Conclusion

The Nevada Supreme Court held that a written post-adoption communication agreement is not automatically invalid in Nevada, even when the final adoption decree does not mention it, and that the birth mother’s complaint—alleging a contract, reliance, and breach—should not have been dismissed at the pleading stage; the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the child’s best interests and the finality of the adoption.


Birth Mother v. Adoptive Parents and New Hope Child and Family Agency, 59 P.3d 1233 (2002)