Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The state Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of respondents Kathleen D. and Ronald D. with respect to their two children, Steven and Zachary, after the children were removed from the parents because Kathleen was in a medically induced coma and Ronald could not care for the children alone due to epilepsy and rheumatoid arthritis. The trial court granted the petitions to terminate respondents' parental rights, finding that DCYF had shown that (1) the children would not be able to return safely to respondents' care within a reasonable period of time, (2) DCYF had made all reasonable efforts to reunite the children with respondents, and (3) it was in the best interests of the children that respondents' parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court vacated the decree of the family court, holding (1) the trial justice clearly erred in finding the DCYF made reasonable efforts to reunify Kathleen with her children, and (2) there was insufficient evidence to prove that Ronald's health conditions would meet requirements for a finding of parental unfitness or that services had been offered or received by Ronald to address this problem. View "In re Steven D. " on Justia Law

In 2007, a family court justice terminated a mother's rights to her two children. The mother appealed, arguing (1) the trial justice erred in finding that the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) proved by clear and convincing evidence that she failed to cooperate with services, that she was an unfit parent, and that it was in the children's best interests that mother's parental rights be terminated; and (2) the trial justice erred in determining that DCYF made reasonable efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice was not clearly wrong when she concluded that the mother's successful completion of a drug-treatment program twenty months after her children were removed from her care was insufficient to rebut a presumption of chronic substance abuse; and (2) because the trial justice terminated the mother's parental rights on the ground of chronic substance abuse, any of DCYF's shortcomings with respect to other problems were only relevant if they contributed to the mother's inability to overcome her difficulties with substance abuse. The Court concluded that because the record gave no indication that the mother was incapable of succeeding with substance-abuse treatment the trial justice did not clearly err. View "In re Destiney L., et al." on Justia Law