## Facts

- A licensed Texas maternity and adoption agency housed and counseled an unmarried pregnant woman for more than fifteen weeks around the birth of her child.
- On admission, her paperwork indicated an initial plan to place the child for adoption.
- The agency provided weekly group counseling and weekly individual counseling; the mother’s primary individual counselor met with her repeatedly.
- After giving birth, the mother informed the agency she intended to keep her baby.
- Over roughly five days, the counselor intensified counseling while the mother was physically weak and emotionally exhausted following childbirth.
- Evidence at trial indicated the counselor used one-sided discussions emphasizing only negative consequences of keeping the child, criticized the mother’s character and motives, and applied moral pressure to surrender the child.
- Evidence also indicated the counselor misrepresented the mother’s legal rights by stating she had no right to keep the child and attempted to discredit the mother’s parents as a support option.
- The mother signed documents surrendering custody and consenting to adoption about one week after the birth.
- The mother later sued to set aside the surrender and consent instruments, alleging they were procured through undue influence by the agency’s staff.

## Issues

1. Whether legally sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that the surrender and adoption-consent instruments were executed due to undue influence by the agency’s agents.
2. Whether undue influence constitutes “overreaching and the like” permitting revocation of an adoption consent given to a licensed agency under Texas law.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment declaring the instruments void.
- Applying a sufficiency review that credited evidence supporting the verdict, the court held the record contained evidence of probative force supporting undue influence.
- The court treated undue influence as a form of overreaching within the limited grounds permitting revocation of a licensed-agency adoption consent.
- The court concluded the jury could reasonably find the agency’s conduct went beyond persuasion and destroyed the mother’s free agency, causing the execution of the documents.

## Legal Principles

- A consent to placement of a child for adoption by a licensed agency is generally revocable only upon proof of fraud, mistake, misrepresentation, overreaching, or similar misconduct.
- Undue influence requires proof that the actor’s free will was destroyed and substituted by the will of the influencer, so the act no longer reflects the actor’s independent decision.
- Undue influence may be established through circumstantial evidence and must be evaluated in light of the particular facts, including vulnerability and dependence.
- Misrepresenting a parent’s legal rights and isolating the parent from family support, when combined with concentrated pressure during a period of physical and emotional weakness, can support a finding of overreaching and undue influence sufficient to void adoption-related consent instruments.
- On legal-sufficiency review of a jury verdict, the appellate court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and does not reweigh credibility.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a jury finding that an adoption agency’s staff used coercive, misleading counseling tactics that overcame a postpartum mother’s free will, making the surrender and consent instruments void and permitting revocation of the agency-placement consent.


Methodist Mission Home of Tex. v. N.A.B., 451 S.W.2d 539 (Tex. Civ. App. 1970)