Miley Cyrus Adoption Lawsuit, Billy Ray Cyrus Wins Dismissal in Bizarre Maternity Claim
A woman claiming to be Miley Cyrus’s biological mother had her lawsuit dismissed with prejudice on December 5, 2024, with Billy Ray Cyrus awarded attorney’s fees. Jayme Lee alleged she gave birth to Miley at age 12 and entered a private adoption agreement with Billy Ray and Tish Cyrus, claiming breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unlawful interference with parental rights.
Billy Ray called the allegations completely false and absurd, stating the lawsuit was filed to harass his family. The case highlights the legal protections against frivolous adoption claims and the high evidentiary standards required to challenge established parental relationships.
What Was the Lawsuit About?
Lee filed her initial lawsuit in May 2024, claiming she entered into a private adoption agreement with Billy Ray and Tish Cyrus that included her right to name Miley and work as her nanny and piano teacher. She alleged severe emotional distress when Billy Ray allegedly misrepresented the circumstances of the adoption.
The legal claims included:
- Breach of Contract: Alleged violation of private adoption agreement
- Fraud and Misrepresentation: Claims that Billy Ray misrepresented adoption circumstances
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Alleged severe emotional harm
- Unlawful Interference with Parental Rights: Claims regarding denied parental relationship
Lee amended her filing in June, claiming Billy Ray and Tish cut off all contact with her and threatened her with police action after Miley was born.
Who Are the Parties Involved?
Plaintiff: Jayme Lee, claiming to be Miley Cyrus’s biological mother
Defendants: Billy Ray Cyrus (Miley’s father) and potentially Tish Cyrus (Miley’s mother)
At Issue: Miley Cyrus, 33-year-old singer and actress born November 23, 1992
Billy Ray and Tish Cyrus share three biological children: Miley, 33, Braison, 31, and Noah, 25. Billy Ray also adopted Brandi, 38, and Trace, 36, from Tish’s previous marriage to Baxter Neal Helson.
Timeline of Legal Developments
May 2024: Lee filed initial lawsuit alleging she was Miley’s biological mother and entered into private adoption agreement
June 2024: Lee filed amended complaint with additional allegations about contact being cut off and police threats
October 2024: Judge denied Lee’s request for trial and supervised DNA maternity and paternity testing of Miley and her parents
November 20, 2024: Billy Ray filed motion to dismiss all of Lee’s claims
December 1, 2024: Billy Ray filed response opposing Lee’s amended complaint and stated he had only recently become aware of the lawsuit
December 5, 2024: Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice and awarded Billy Ray recovery of reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees and costs
Legal Framework: What Laws Apply?
This case involves multiple areas of civil law that govern adoption disputes and tort claims:
Adoption Law Principles
Adoption law in the United States is regulated by state statute. In adoption-related disputes, courts must balance:
- Best interests of the child: Primary consideration in all adoption matters
- Parental rights: Constitutional protections for established parent-child relationships
- Finality of adoption: Courts are extremely reluctant to undo completed adoptions
For a claim challenging an adoption to succeed, plaintiffs typically must prove the original adoption involved fraud, coercion, or invalid consent. The burden of proof is extraordinarily high when challenging an adoption completed over 30 years ago.
Contract Law Claims
Twenty-seven states have enacted laws holding adoption agencies accountable for breach of contract when they fail to fulfill obligations to adoptive families. However, breach of contract claims in adoption require:
- Valid contract existence: Proof of enforceable agreement
- Breach: Demonstration that terms were violated
- Damages: Quantifiable harm resulting from breach
Private adoption agreements between birth parents and adoptive parents must comply with state adoption statutes to be enforceable.
Fraud and Misrepresentation
Fraud claims in adoption contexts typically require proof of:
- Intentional false representation of material fact
- Knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth
- Intent to induce reliance
- Justifiable reliance by plaintiff
- Resulting damages
Adoption fraud is a criminal act involving obtaining money from adoptive parents under false pretenses or providing a child not legitimately available for adoption.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
This tort claim requires proof of:
- Extreme and outrageous conduct
- Intent to cause emotional distress or reckless disregard
- Severe emotional distress actually suffered
- Causation between conduct and distress
Courts recognize emotional distress damages in wrongful adoption claims when agencies withhold or misrepresent information, holding them liable for harm caused to adoptive families.
Interference with Parental Rights
This claim typically applies when:
- A legal parent-child relationship exists or should exist
- A third party intentionally interferes with that relationship
- The interference causes damages
- The interference lacks legal justification
Why the Court Dismissed the Case
The dismissal “with prejudice” means Lee cannot refile the lawsuit. Courts dismiss adoption-related claims for several reasons:
Lack of Evidence: The judge denied Lee’s request for DNA testing in October 2024, suggesting insufficient preliminary evidence to warrant such invasive testing.
Harassment: Billy Ray accused Lee of filing the lawsuit to harass him and his family. Courts protect defendants from frivolous litigation.
Finality of Adoption: Miley’s adoption (if any occurred) was completed over 32 years ago. Courts strongly favor maintaining established parent-child relationships and rarely disturb decades-old adoptions.
Attorney’s Fees Award: The court’s decision to award Billy Ray his attorney’s fees and costs indicates the court found the claims lacked merit or were filed improperly.
Timing: Billy Ray stated he had only recently become aware of the lawsuit, suggesting potential procedural issues with service or notice.
Legal Implications for Adoption Law
Protections for Adoptive Families
This case reinforces several critical protections:
High Evidentiary Standards: Courts require substantial evidence before allowing challenges to established adoptions. Allegations alone are insufficient.
Finality Doctrine: The decades-old parent-child relationship between Billy Ray, Tish, and Miley receives strong legal protection. Courts recognize that family stability and children’s best interests require adoption permanence.
Protection from Frivolous Claims: The attorney’s fees award deters baseless adoption challenges that could harm established families.
DNA Testing Restrictions
The judge’s October 2024 denial of DNA testing illustrates that courts don’t automatically grant biological testing requests. Parties must demonstrate:
- Legitimate legal basis for testing
- Preliminary evidence supporting their claims
- That testing serves the child’s best interests
- That the request isn’t merely harassment
“With Prejudice” Dismissal
This dismissal bars Lee from:
- Refiling the same claims in the same court
- Pursuing identical claims based on the same facts
- Continuing to challenge Miley’s parentage through this legal avenue
The finality provides closure for Billy Ray, Tish, and Miley.
What Legal Experts Say About the Case
Adoption law experts emphasize several principles illustrated by this case:
Standing Requirements: Plaintiffs challenging adoptions must establish legal standing—a legitimate legal interest in the matter. Without evidence of a recognized legal relationship, claims fail.
Burden of Proof: Anyone challenging an established adoption bears an extraordinarily high burden of proof. They must demonstrate not just biological connection, but that the original adoption was legally invalid.
Statute of Limitations: Most states impose time limits on challenging adoptions. Claims filed decades after an adoption face nearly insurmountable legal barriers.
Public Policy: Courts prioritize children’s welfare and family stability. Public policy strongly disfavors disrupting long-established parent-child relationships based on unsubstantiated claims.
Courts have recognized a duty to disclose known material information about a child’s health and social background to prospective adoptive families, but this duty runs from agencies to adoptive parents—not the other way around.
Wrongful Adoption vs. This Case
This case differs fundamentally from typical wrongful adoption litigation:
Typical Wrongful Adoption Cases: Adoptive parents claim agencies failed to provide full background information, depriving them of opportunity to make informed decisions and leaving them unprepared to meet the child’s needs. These cases involve fraud, misrepresentation, or negligence by adoption agencies, attorneys, or biological parents.
Lee’s Claims: Alleged she was the biological mother denied her parental rights—the inverse of typical wrongful adoption. This unusual posture made her case extraordinarily difficult legally.
Most wrongful adoption cases involve failure to provide significant information affecting the child’s physical or emotional health—not challenges to parentage itself.
Similar Cases and Legal Precedents
Courts have consistently protected established adoptions from belated challenges:
Finality Principle: Once adoption is finalized, courts treat the adoptive parents as the legal parents with all associated rights and responsibilities. Biological connections alone don’t confer legal standing to challenge completed adoptions.
Best Interests Standard: Even when biological parents successfully prove adoption fraud or invalid consent, courts may still decline to reverse the adoption if doing so would harm the child—especially when the child is an adult.
Fraud Requirements: Courts require clear and convincing evidence of fraud to invalidate adoptions. Unsubstantiated allegations fail this standard.
Time Bars: Most jurisdictions impose strict time limits for challenging adoptions. Claims filed 30+ years after finalization face nearly insurmountable procedural barriers.
What This Means for Parties Involved
For Billy Ray Cyrus: Complete legal victory with attorney’s fees. The “with prejudice” dismissal prevents Lee from refiling.
For Miley Cyrus: No legal impact on her status as Billy Ray and Tish Cyrus’s daughter. The dismissal affirms her established legal parentage.
For Tish Cyrus: Though her specific involvement in the litigation is unclear, the dismissal protects her established maternal relationship with Miley.
For Jayme Lee: Cannot pursue these claims further in this legal action. The attorney’s fees award creates financial liability. No DNA testing will occur.
Current Status and What Happens Next
The December 5, 2024 dismissal with prejudice ends this litigation. No appeals have been reported as of December 8, 2024.
Closed Legal Avenues: Lee cannot:
- Refile this lawsuit
- Obtain court-ordered DNA testing through this case
- Pursue these specific claims against Billy Ray
Potential Future Actions: Lee theoretically could attempt to file entirely different claims in different jurisdictions, but she would face:
- Similar evidentiary burdens
- Likely statute of limitations bars
- Risk of sanctions for frivolous litigation
- Additional attorney’s fees awards against her
Family Implications: Billy Ray recently congratulated Miley on her engagement to musician Maxx Morando after years of estrangement, suggesting the family is focused on rebuilding relationships rather than this dismissed lawsuit.
Legal Resources and Protections
Individuals facing similar adoption-related claims should:
Consult Adoption Attorneys: Experienced counsel can evaluate claims’ merit and defend against frivolous litigation.
Document Family History: Maintain birth certificates, adoption records, and medical documentation to refute baseless claims.
Understand State Laws: Adoption laws vary by state. Know your jurisdiction’s statutes regarding adoption finality and challenges.
Recognize Protective Doctrines: Courts provide robust protections for established families against unfounded challenges.
Key Takeaways
- High Dismissal Standard Met: The court found Lee’s claims lacked sufficient merit to proceed
- Adoption Finality Protected: Decades-old adoptions receive strong legal protection
- DNA Testing Denied: Courts don’t automatically grant testing requests without substantial preliminary evidence
- Attorney’s Fees Awarded: The court imposed financial consequences on Lee for pursuing baseless claims
- Family Stability Prioritized: Legal system protects established parent-child relationships from frivolous challenges
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Can biological parents challenge adoptions years later?
A: Generally no. Most states impose strict time limits (typically 6 months to 2 years) for challenging adoptions. After 30+ years, challenges face nearly insurmountable legal barriers including statutes of limitations, evidentiary standards, and public policy favoring adoption finality.
Q: What is a “dismissal with prejudice”?
A: A dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits that bars the plaintiff from refiling the same claims. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice (which allows refiling), this dismissal permanently ends the litigation.
Q: Why did the court award attorney’s fees to Billy Ray Cyrus?
A: Courts award attorney’s fees to defendants in cases involving frivolous litigation or harassment. The award suggests the court found Lee’s claims lacked merit and should not have been filed.
Q: Could Lee obtain DNA testing through other means?
A: Not without Miley’s consent. Competent adults cannot be compelled to undergo DNA testing absent extraordinary circumstances. Miley is a 33-year-old adult with full legal autonomy.
Q: What is wrongful adoption?
A: Wrongful adoption typically involves adoption agencies failing to disclose known material information about a child’s health and background to prospective adoptive parents. Lee’s case was the inverse—a claimed biological parent challenging established parentage.
Q: Do private adoption agreements override state law?
A: No. All adoption agreements must comply with state adoption statutes to be enforceable. Private agreements that violate statutory requirements are void. Courts will not enforce adoption arrangements that circumvent legal protections.
Q: How does this case affect other adoption challenges?
A: This case reinforces that courts require substantial evidence before entertaining adoption challenges and will dismiss frivolous claims. It demonstrates the legal system’s strong protection of established parent-child relationships.
This article provides legal information about the Miley Cyrus adoption lawsuit but does not constitute legal advice. Individuals with specific legal questions should consult licensed attorneys in their jurisdictions.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah