Thursday, February 07, 2008


As I read this story, I wondered the real facts behind it. Here is the story itself.

New Hearing Ordered In Adoption Data Case

This article was published on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 10:23 PM CST in News

By Rob Moritz
Arkansas News Bureau

LITTLE ROCK - The state Court of Appeals on Wednesday ordered a new hearing in a lawsuit filed by a woman who gave her child up for adoption and then claimed her Fort Smith doctor disclosed confidential information about her to the child's adoptive parents.Angela Floyd of Crawford County filed the lawsuit in 2006 against Dr. Samuel Koenig III, seeking compensatory and punitive damages for invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private facts, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.The suit said Floyd was a pregnant single mother in 1987 and was receiving prenatal care from Koenig when the doctor, during a visit, suggested she give her baby up for adoption. Floyd's suit said Koenig told her he knew a family that wanted to adopt and that he could make all the arrangements.In 1988, she gave her newborn baby girl up for adoption and chose not to tell her son, who was born in 1986. She also never told the man she married in September 2003.The lawsuit alleges Koenig, in March 2006, disclosed Floyd's confidential patient information to the adoptive father, who then contacted her.Court records said the adoptive father allegedly told Floyd to tell her biological daughter that she did not want to have a relationship with her, and that if she refused, the adoptive father would tell her son and new husband about the adoption.

Sebastian County Circuit Judge James O. Cox later dismissed the lawsuit, saying Floyd's complaint did not set out allegations of fraud or facts that would support an allegation of fraudulent conduct. The judge also said a three-year statute of limitations passed before Floyd filed the lawsuit.On Thursday, the appeals court reversed Cox's decision in an eight-page ruling."In reviewing these allegations, we recognize that the issue of fraudulent concealment is normally a question of fact that is not suited for dismissal by summary judgment or, as here, by a motion to dismiss," Judge Sam Bird wrote."Our review of these allegations and the relevant law convinces us that (Angela Floyd) has alleged facts sufficient to support the application of fraudulent concealment," the court said.On the statute of limitations argument, the court said allegations of fraud suspends the running of the statute of limitations until the party having the cause of action discovers the fraud, or should have discovered it.

Sadly this happens all the time. As an adoptee who used the confidential intermediary system in Indiana, I agree with the natural mother in this case. I was given confidential information regarding the psych evaluations of my natural mother during her stay at the Suemma Coleman Home for Unwed Mothers. I don't need that information. What relevance does it have on me? If anything, it makes me empathesize with her further. I know that they think that I won't find her but seriously what about her right to medical privacy? In this sense, she should have this. Information that records my birth is my information but her psych evalutions are none of my business.

The adoptive father wanted to have his daughter told by this woman that she didn't want contact. Now is he blackmailing her to keep his daughter from searching? Or did she really not want contact with her daughter? In this situation, he was wrong for doing this. This is business between her and her daughter. In this situation neither party had a choice in the matter. That is just plain wrong and harmful for the two people directly involved in the situation. I appreciate the fact this mother stood up against a person who seems very corrupt. How was he even allowed to adopt?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I was given confidential information regarding the psych evaluations of my natural mother during her stay at the Suemma Coleman Home for Unwed Mothers

I have wanted my records but no one seems to have them. One of my friends stayed in Crittendon and got hers. I stayed in Gehring Hall and have written both the hospital and the former director of the home and gotten no response.

I wonder where they went. I wonder what they say.

I often wonder if they are accurate and if records are doctored up to support the 'need' for adoption. Meaing do some parties write false information about a mother to say she is not stable, not fit, not capable of parenting.

But you make a valid point.
I dont suppose HIPPA can be grandfathered?