## Facts

- John M. Wyatt III and Colleen Fahland, an unmarried couple living in Virginia, allegedly planned to raise their child together.
- Fahland’s parents allegedly retained Mark McDermott, a Virginia attorney, to arrange an adoption without Wyatt’s knowledge.
- At a meeting before the child’s birth, Fahland signed paperwork identifying Wyatt as the father and indicating he wanted to keep the baby; she offered to provide Wyatt’s address.
- McDermott allegedly instructed Fahland to falsely state that Wyatt’s address was unknown, and she did so.
- McDermott allegedly coordinated with a Utah adoption agency and Utah counsel to place the child for adoption with Utah residents.
- Wyatt alleged he was intentionally kept unaware of the adoption plan while Fahland continued to reassure him they would raise the child together, delaying his efforts to protect his parental rights.
- After the child’s birth in Utah and placement with the adoptive parents, Wyatt learned of the adoption and pursued custody-related relief and damages, including a claim for tortious interference with parental rights.
- In the federal action, defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the federal court certified questions of Virginia law to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

## Issues

1. Whether Virginia common law recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with parental rights.
2. If recognized, what elements a plaintiff must plead and prove to establish that tort.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia held that Virginia recognizes a cause of action for tortious interference with parental rights.
- The Court answered that the tort applies to intentional, wrongful interference by third parties with a parent’s legally protected relationship with a child.
- The Court identified the elements of the tort and returned the matter to the certifying federal court for application to the pleadings and proof.

## Legal Principles

- Virginia recognizes a tort claim when a third party intentionally and wrongfully interferes with a parent’s legally cognizable custodial or parental rights, causing loss or serious frustration of the parent-child relationship and resulting damages.
- The plaintiff must show: (1) existing, legally recognized parental or custodial rights; (2) intentional interference by the defendant through wrongful removal, detention, concealment, or comparable conduct designed to defeat those rights; (3) causation; and (4) damages.
- Equitable family-law remedies (custody/visitation orders) may be insufficient to compensate for completed interference; tort damages may be available for resulting harms, including emotional distress.
- The tort is limited to misconduct that targets a parent’s enforceable rights and is not a vehicle to relitigate custody or adoption decrees; it is a damages action against interfering third parties.

## Conclusion

Virginia law permits a parent to seek damages from third parties who intentionally and wrongfully interfere with the parent’s legally protected relationship with a child, and the claim requires proof of enforceable parental rights, intentional interference, causation, and damages.


Wyatt v. McDermott, 725 S.E.2d 555 (Va. 2012)