## Facts

- Russell H. and Betty J. Burr sought to adopt a healthy male child through the Stark County Welfare Department.
- A county adoption caseworker described a 17-month-old boy as a healthy child and represented that his biological mother was a healthy 18-year-old who voluntarily relinquished him for employment reasons.
- Agency records later showed the child was born at a state mental hospital; the biological mother was a mental patient with significant cognitive limitations; the father was unknown but believed to be a mental patient; and the child had birth complications and noted developmental delays.
- The adoption division possessed information reflecting the child’s medical and developmental problems and the risks associated with his family background.
- After the adoption, the child developed severe physical and cognitive impairments and was later diagnosed with Huntington’s disease, leading to substantial medical costs.
- The Burrs alleged they relied on the agency’s material misrepresentations and omissions and would not have adopted the child had the truth been disclosed.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio courts of common pleas have subject-matter jurisdiction over a damages action against a county and its welfare department, as opposed to exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Claims.
2. Whether adoptive parents may maintain a “wrongful adoption” action by proving the elements of common-law fraud based on an adoption agency’s material misrepresentations or concealment.
3. When a fraud claim accrues under Ohio’s four-year statute of limitations for fraud, including whether accrual awaits actual discovery of the fraud and the wrongdoer.
4. Whether sovereign immunity bars liability of a political subdivision for fraud committed by its employees within the scope of their duties.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the judgment for the Burrs.
- Courts of common pleas generally have original jurisdiction over civil actions against counties and their agencies.
- Adoptive parents may recover in an action captioned “wrongful adoption” by proving each element of common-law fraud based on an agency’s material misrepresentations or concealment regarding a child’s background and condition.
- A fraud claim accrues when the fraud and the wrongdoer are actually discovered; filing within four years of that discovery is timely.
- Sovereign immunity does not shield a political subdivision from responsibility for fraudulent acts and misrepresentations by its employees and agents performed in the course of their activities.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio courts of common pleas generally have original jurisdiction over civil actions against counties and their agencies.
- “Wrongful adoption” claims are governed by ordinary fraud doctrine rather than a separate, newly created tort.
- Fraud requires proof of: (1) a representation or, where there is a duty to disclose, concealment of a fact; (2) materiality; (3) falsity with knowledge or reckless disregard; (4) intent to mislead; (5) justifiable reliance; and (6) injury proximately caused by reliance.
- Under Ohio’s fraud limitations statute, accrual occurs upon actual discovery of the fraud and the wrongdoer.
- Political subdivisions are not immune from liability for fraud committed by employees acting within the scope of their duties.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court held that adoptive parents who were induced to adopt by a county agency’s material misrepresentations or concealment may recover damages by proving common-law fraud, that such claims accrue upon actual discovery of the fraud and responsible actor, and that counties cannot avoid liability for employees’ fraud through sovereign immunity.


Burr v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Stark Cnty., 23 Ohio St. 3d 69, 491 N.E.2d 1101 (Ohio 1986)