She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and required hospitalization in facilities for the mentally ill. Another of the girls was diagnosed with severe psychological problems and requires costly therapy and medication. Two of the girls have acted out in a violent manner, in some instances inflicting physical injury upon plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have incurred substantial financial obligations in addressing the children's special needs and severe emotional distress accompanied by headaches, hypertension, nausea, sleeplessness and in the case of Mr. Lord, arrhythmia and other cardiac problems. From this evidence a reasonable factfinder could conclude that defendants intentionally or recklessly, as well as negligently, made material misrepresentations about the history and condition of at least two of the adopted children on which plaintiffs justifiably relied to take action which has resulted in loss or injury to them.
Defendants misread Gibbs .
The Court in Gibbs held that although adoption was unknown at common law, common law tort principles are nevertheless applicable in the adoption context. The Court held that adopting parents could assert common law claims for intentional and negligent misrepresentation against child placement agencies although the Adoption Act did not create a private cause of action for a breach of a statutory duty by such an agency. The Court did not hold that unless a defendant is an adoption agency or intermediary, it cannot be liable for misrepresentations made in the course of encouraging and facilitating an adoption. Further, one cannot conclusively determine from the summary judgment record that Living Bridges was not operating as a placement agency or intermediary. Living Bridges accepted public and private money to facilitate adoptions.