## Facts

- C.A.M. and R.A.W. had a consensual sexual relationship.
- C.A.M. initially used contraception but alleged R.A.W. stated he had undergone a vasectomy and could not impregnate her.
- Relying on that statement, C.A.M. stopped using contraception and later became pregnant.
- C.A.M. gave birth to a normal, healthy child in December 1987.
- In a prior Family Part proceeding, R.A.W. agreed under oath that he was the father; the court ordered child support and related financial obligations (including health insurance and medical expenses).
- C.A.M. then filed a separate civil action seeking tort damages for pregnancy- and childbirth-related harms and economic loss, asserting negligent misrepresentation, fraud, tortious interference, and negligent/intentional infliction of emotional distress, and seeking punitive damages.
- R.A.W. admitted saying he had a vasectomy but claimed it was said “in jest.”

## Issues

1. Whether New Jersey law permits tort recovery for pregnancy- and childbirth-related damages when conception allegedly resulted from a sexual partner’s misrepresentation of sterility, and the child is born healthy.
2. Whether claims styled as misrepresentation, fraud, emotional distress, or tortious interference can proceed when the asserted harm depends on treating the birth of a healthy child as a compensable injury.
3. Whether the statutory paternity and child-support framework is the exclusive remedy for the economic consequences associated with the child under these circumstances.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division affirmed summary judgment for R.A.W. on all tort-based claims.
- The court held that the birth of a normal, healthy child is not a legally cognizable injury supporting tort damages in this context.
- The court ruled that re-labeling the claim as misrepresentation, fraud, emotional distress, or tortious interference did not create a viable cause of action where the alleged damages flowed from the conception and birth of a healthy child.
- The court concluded that the paternity and support remedies already obtained in family court addressed the legally recognized obligations arising from parentage.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff cannot recover tort damages premised on characterizing the birth of a healthy child as a compensable injury.
- Where the asserted damages are inseparable from conception and birth of a healthy child, alternative tort labels (fraud, negligent misrepresentation, emotional distress, tortious interference) do not supply an independent basis for recovery.
- New Jersey’s parentage and support statutes provide the operative mechanism for establishing paternity and enforcing financial responsibilities for the child, and courts will not expand tort remedies to supplement that scheme on these facts.
- Policy concerns about valuing human life and assessing the “cost” of a child support judicial reluctance to recognize such claims absent legislative authorization.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the plaintiff’s tort action, holding that New Jersey does not recognize tort damages based on a partner’s misrepresented sterility when the result is the birth of a normal, healthy child, and that the appropriate remedies lie in paternity and child-support proceedings rather than additional tort recovery.


C.A.M. v. R.A.W., 568 A.2d 556 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1990)