Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a trial, the family court dissolved the twenty-four year marriage of Husband and Wife. Both parties appealed the family court’s decision. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision pending entry of final judgment, holding that the trial justice (1) did not overlook or misconceive the medical evidence relating to Wife’s medical condition; (2) did not err in distributing the property; (3) did not err by retroactively applying a modification of child support; (4) did not err by failing to award Wife lifelong medical coverage and attorney’s fees; and (5) made an inequitable sua sponte modification concerning the termination of alimony. View "Bober v. Bober" on Justia Law

Son was born to Mother, who was incarcerated at the time of the birth. Father was also incarcerated at that time. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents, alleging that Mother and Father had chronic substance-abuse problems and that Son had been placed in the legal custody of DCYF for at least twelve months with no substantial probability that Son would be able to return to the parents’ custody within a reasonable period of time. After a hearing, the hearing justice terminated Father’s parental rights. The Supreme Court affirmed the decree terminating Father’s parental rights, holding (1) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in finding that Father was unfit and that it was improbable that Son would be able to return to Father’s care within a reasonable period of time; and (2) the trial justice did not clearly err in finding that DCYF had met its burden to make reasonable efforts under R.I. Gen. Laws 15-7-7(b)(1). View "In re Lyric P." on Justia Law

In 2006, the family court entered final judgment on a divorce between Sandra Carney and Stephen Carney that incorporated by reference a marriage settlement agreement (MSA) entered into by the parties. In 2011, Stephen filed a motion to enforce the MSA or, in the alternative, to adjudge Sandra in contempt, arguing that Sandra failed to comply with the MSA because she did not pay an equitable distribution to him upon her sale of the parties’ former marital domicile. The trial justice determined that Stephen was entitled to payment from Sandra under the terms of the MSA and gave Sandra until 2012 to produce the amount of $59,375 to Stephen. The Supreme Court reversed in part the order of the family court, holding (1) the trial justice did not make sufficient factual findings on the record with respect to the intent of the parties at the time they entered into the agreement regarding the timing of the payment of the equitable distribution; and (2) the trial justice erred in her calculation of the amount Sandra owed to Stephen for the sale of the house. View "Carney v. Carney" on Justia Law

After John and Anne had been married almost twenty years, John filed a complaint for divorce. Three years later, the parties indicated that they had reached a settlement, which obligated John to provide health insurance for Anne until she reached sixty-five years of age, with a Medicare supplement thereafter. The parties' agreement was read into the record and approved by the trial justice, who ordered it incorporated but not merged into the final divorce decree. However, the parties never executed a written agreement. John later challenged the validity of the marital settlement agreement after Anne moved to enforce the provisions of the agreement respecting John's obligation to pay for health insurance. The family court found that the parties clearly agreed that John was to cover Anne with her health insurance and ordered John to obtain and maintain the health insurance pursuant to the agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agreement was sufficient to form a nonmodifiable marital settlement agreement, and therefore, John was bound by its terms. View "O'Donnell v. O'Donnell" on Justia Law

After Father's two daughters were committed to the care and custody of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), DCYF filed petitions to involuntarily terminate Father's parental rights to the children. After a trial on the termination petition, the family court terminated Father's parental rights to both daughters. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not err in finding there was clear and convincing evidence of DCYF's reasonable efforts towards reunification; (2) the trial justice did not err in finding that there was no substantial probability of the children returning to Father's care within a reasonable period of time; and (3) there was sufficient proof to support the trial justice's finding of abandonment. View "In re Lauren B. " on Justia Law

Wife filed for a divorce from Husband. Thereafter, Husband unsuccessfully filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, contending that the family court did not have jurisdiction because Wife had not been a resident of the State for one year prior to the filing of the complaint. In the meantime, Wife filed an emergency motion for seeking an order restraining Husband from proceeding with a divorce action in any other jurisdiction, which the trial justice granted. After a trial, the trial justice sanctioned Husband for violation of a discovery order, distributed the martial property, found Wife was entitled to rehabilitative alimony, ordered that Husband should pay Wife counsel fees, and found that Husband was in contempt of court because he violated the prior order restraining him from proceeding with a divorce in another jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err (1) in denying Husband's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as Wife residency in the State met the subject matter jurisdiction requirements of the pertinent statute; (2) in awarding Wife rehabilitative alimony; (3) with respect to the award of counsel fees; and (4) in his adjudication of Husband as being in contempt of court. View "Meyer v. Meyer" on Justia Law

Wife filed a complaint for an absolute divorce, and Husband filed a counterclaim. As grounds for divorce, both parties cited irreconcilable differences. The proceedings in the family court spanned almost five years. The family court eventually granted Wife's complaint. At issue on appeal was the court's distribution of the stock of Microfibres, Inc. (Microfibres), of which Husband was the president and CEO, and Microfibres Partnership Limited (MPL). The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the portion of the family court's decision addressing the portion of MPL that was marital property and the trial justice's grant of partial summary judgment holding that the stock of Microfibres was marital property; and (2) vacated the portion of the decision addressing the equitable distribution of the marital estate, holding that the trial justice erred when he declined to value his assignments of Microfibres and MPL. Remanded with direction to value Microfibres and MPL as of the date of trial and to distribute the marital estate in accordance with R.I. Gen. Laws 15-5-16.1. View "McCulloch v. McCulloch" on Justia Law

After Evelyn was born, Father and Mother tested positive for cocaine, opiates, and marijuana. Eventually, the family court found both parents were unfit due to chronic drug use and terminated the parental rights of Father to Evelyn. Father appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) ample evidence supported the trial justice's finding that Father had a chronic substance abuse problem that rendered him unable to care for Evelyn; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's determination that it was unlikely Evelyn could be returned to Father within a reasonable amount of time. View "In re Evelyn C." on Justia Law

In 2010, the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed two petitions for the involuntary termination of Mother's and Father's (collectively, Respondents) parental rights with respect to their two children. The family court terminated Respondents' parental rights to their children, concluding (1) Mother was unfit because she had a chronic substance-abuse problem, her conduct was seriously detrimental to the children, and the children would not be able to safety return to her care within a reasonable period of time; and (2) Father was unfit because the children had been in state custody for more than twelve months without a substantial probability of safe return to his care and because he had abandoned the children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in its determinations. View "In re Isabella M. " on Justia Law

Plaintiff was the mother of two boys. After it was established that the boys were Defendant's children, Defendant moved for visitation, which the family court granted. Defendant was subsequently charged with second-degree child abuse, and the family court awarded sole custody to Plaintiff. Defendant was convicted of second-degree child abuse, but the charges were dismissed on appeal. Thereafter, Defendant unsuccessfully filed a motion for sole custody, arguing that the vacating of his conviction and the dismissal of the second-degree child abuse charge were changed circumstances sufficient to modify the existing custody decree. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, in light of Defendant's failure to complete required domestic-violence counseling and drug testing, the family court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to modify custody. View "Catley v. Sampson" on Justia Law