Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court denying Mother's motion for relocation with the minor child of the parties, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.The parties in this case were never married and together have a child. Pursuant to a court order, the parties were granted joint custody and Mother was granted physical placement of the child. The next year, Mother filed a motion to relocate with the child to the state of Florida. The trial justice denied the motion to relocate, concluding that relocation was not in the best interests of the child. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence in denying the motion to relocate. View "Leon v. Krikorian" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of Plaintiff, in her capacity as Administratrix for the Estate of Lisa Bicknell, following a grant of summary judgment, holding that there was no error.When the Defendant and the decedent were married Lisa participated in a 401(k) retirement plan. Lisa designated her then-husband, Defendant, as a contingent death beneficiary. After the couple divorced, Lisa died without a will and without having changed Defendant's designation as beneficiary of the retirement plan. Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin Defendant from transferring or conveying any portion of the money he had or may receive from the plan, claiming that Defendant had waived all interest in the retirement plan under the parties' property settlement agreement. The trial court ordered that the retirement funds be transferred to Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant waived any and all interest in the retirement plan, and no genuine issue of material fact remained in dispute. View "Morgan v. Bicknell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting the parties in this case a divorce on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, dividing the parties' marital estate, and awarding joint custody of the parties' child, holding that there was no error.Both parties in this case - Elida Mezini and Leart Mezini - appealed the judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision pending entry of final judgment of the family court, holding (1) there was no error in the trial justice's equitable distribution of the marital property; (2) the trial justice did not abuse his discretion in setting Leart's child support obligations; and (3) as to any remaining issues, the trial court did not err. View "Mezini v. Mezini" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Mother's parental rights to her son, holding that the family court did not err.The trial justice found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother was unfit to parent the child and that it was in the child's best interest that Mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support the trial justice's finding that Mother was unfit given her failure to engage fully in the services provided by the Department of Children, Youth, and Families and lack of protective capacity; and (2) the trial justice's decision to terminate Mother's parental rights was proper. View "In re Domenic B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Mother's parental rights to her four minor children pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 15-7-7(a)(2)(vii) and 15-7-7(a)(3), holding that this Court will not disturb the trial justice's finding that termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children.The trial justice ruled that it was in the best interests of the children that Mother's parental rights be terminated because the child had been in the custody of the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) for at least twelve months, Mother had been offered services to correct the situation leading to the children's placement, there was no a substantial probability that the children could safely be returned to Mother's care, and that Mother had exhibited behaviors seriously detrimental to the children rendering her future care for the children improbable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice adequately protected Mother's due process rights by ensuring that she was represented at all times; (2) the trial justice did not err when he found that DCYF made reasonable efforts to address the underlying issues leading to the termination of Mother's parental rights; and (3) the termination of Mother's parental rights was in the best interests of the children. View "In re Manuel P." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court denying Mother's motion to relocate with the parties' minor child and vacated the order granting Father's motion to modify child support, holding that the trial justice erred by failing to consider the circumstances concerning the child's needs or Father's ability to pay child support.The parties entered into a property settlement agreement, which was incorporated by reference but not merged into the final decree, that provided for joint custody of the child with physical placement to be with Mother. Father was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $1,471 per month. Mother later filed a motion to relocate with the child to New Jersey. Father objected and filed a motion to modify child support. The trial justice denied Mother's motion to relocate and granted Father's motion to modify. The Supreme Court held (1) the trial justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence in denying Mother's motion to relocate; and (2) the trial justice's reasoning in granting Father's motion for child support was not proper. View "Andrade v. Andrade" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the family court entered in favor of Plaintiff granting her motion for relief after final judgment and ordering that Defendant comply with the terms of a previously entered consent order, holding that there was no error.When the parties in this case divorced they executed a property settlement agreement that was approved by the family court. Later, a consent order was entered reflecting an agreement between the parties that Defendant's child support obligations would be modified and that the adjustment was in consideration of Defendant agreeing to pay one-half of private and/or Catholic educational expenses, up to and including college. Plaintiff subsequently filed a complaint for relief after final judgment alleging that Defendant refused to pay what he owed for the child's tuition. The family court entered judgment for Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the family court properly exercised jurisdiction in both entering and enforcing the consent order; and (2) the trial justice properly ruled that Defendant breached his contract to pay for one-half of the child's private university tuition. View "Alessandro v. Caniglia" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Mother's parental rights to her son, holding that Mother's arguments on appeal were unavailing.The trial justice found that was not in the child's best interest to be placed with Mother, that Mother was unfit, and that the child was thriving with foster parents who could offer him permanency. The trial justice then found that it was in the child's best interest that mother's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the finding of unfitness was supported by clear and convincing, legally competent evidence; (2) the trial justice's finding that reasonable efforts were made to reunify Mother and the child was supported by legally competent evidence; and (3) the trial justice's finding that Mother's termination of parental rights was in the child's best interest was supported by legally competent evidence. View "In re Gelvin B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court denying Defendant's motion seeking visitation with his minor daughter, whom he shared with Plaintiff, holding that the family court did not err or abuse its discretion.Upon Defendant's incarceration, Plaintiff filed a complaint for divorce. The family court entered a judgment of divorce awarding Plaintiff sole legal custody and physical placement of the parties' son and daughter and denying visitation rights to Plaintiff. Plaintiff later filed a motion seeking visits with his daughter at the Adult Correctional Institutions. The trial justice denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in denying Defendant's motion to modify visitation. View "Brooks v. Brooks" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court denying Plaintiff's motion to modify visitation and contact with the two children he shared with Defendant, holding that the family court did not err.In denying Plaintiff's motion, the trial justice found that there was "not a scintilla of evidence" in the record to show that it was in the children's best interests to see or communicate with Plaintiff while he was incarcerated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the family court did not err or abuse his discretion in denying Plaintiff's request to restore visitation and mandate contact with the children where he found no evidence to indicate that it was in the children's best interests to have a relationship with Plaintiff while he was incarcerated. View "Murray v. Jones" on Justia Law