## Facts

- A married couple sought to adopt a child through a private adoption agency.
- During the pre-placement process, the agency discussed the possibility that the child’s background involved incest.
- The agency placed an infant with the couple and disclosed only generally that there was “some history of incest” in the child’s background.
- The agency did not disclose at placement that the child’s genetic parents were brother and sister and did not fully convey information about the genetic father’s mental health and functioning.
- As the child grew, the adoptive parents observed serious behavioral and emotional problems and sought additional background information for treatment purposes.
- The agency later provided information confirming the sibling-parentage and describing the genetic father as in “good health” but hyperactive, of low intelligence, and with mental-health issues.
- The adoptive parents sued for intentional misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation, and sought to add claims for emotional distress and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether public policy precludes a negligent misrepresentation action against an adoption agency for allegedly misleading disclosures about a child’s genetic and medical background.
2. Whether summary judgment was properly granted against the adoptive parents on their intentional misrepresentation claim.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend to add intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages claims.

## Decision

- Public policy did not bar a negligent misrepresentation claim where the agency undertook to disclose background information but allegedly withheld information in a way that misled the adoptive parents.
- Summary judgment for the agency on intentional misrepresentation was affirmed because the record did not support an inference of knowing falsity and intent to deceive.
- The denial of leave to amend to add emotional-distress and punitive-damages claims was affirmed as within the trial court’s discretion.

## Legal Principles

- When an adoption agency voluntarily undertakes to provide information about a child’s genetic parents or medical background for the adoptive parents’ decision-making, it has a duty to use reasonable care to avoid misleading disclosures.
- The duty does not impose a general obligation to investigate or guarantee all facts; it requires avoiding omissions or half-truths that would cause reasonable adoptive parents to draw materially incorrect inferences.
- Intentional misrepresentation requires proof of knowing falsity and intent to deceive; negligence-level proof is insufficient.
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct; negligent infliction of emotional distress generally requires a physical injury or qualifying “zone of danger” circumstances; punitive damages require clear and convincing evidence of deliberate disregard for others’ rights or safety.

## Conclusion

Minnesota recognized that adoptive parents may pursue negligent misrepresentation claims against an adoption agency for misleading partial disclosures once the agency chooses to speak about a child’s background, while restricting fraud, emotional-distress, and punitive-damages theories to traditional tort requirements.


M.H. v. Caritas Fam. Servs., 488 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 1992)