Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgments of the family court granting joint custody of the parties' minor child to Mother and Father, with physical placement awarded to Mother, and finding Mother in contempt of a prior visitation order, holding that there was no error.The trial justice issued a written decision and order awarding Mother and Father joint custody, with Mother having physical placement of the child and Father having unsupervised visitation. The trial justice later found Mother in contempt for failure to comply with a prior visitation order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice did not err in finding Mother in contempt and that Mother's remaining claims of error were unavailing. View "Harris v. Evans" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial justice in this case terminating Defendant's marriage to Plaintiff on the grounds of irreconcilable differences, holding that the trial court did not err.After a trial, the trial justice granted both Plaintiff's complaint and Defendant's counterclaim for divorce. The justice awarded the parties joint custody of the children and divided the marital property. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not misconceive evidence and was not clearly wrong in reaching several of his findings; (2) the trial justice did not err in addressing the debts Defendant owed to his parents; and (3) the trial justice did not err in failing to accord Defendant any of the marital appreciation of Plaintiff's premarital accounts. View "Sullivan v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that the family court did not abuse its discretion.After a termination trial, the trial justice terminated Father's parental rights to his daughter, concluding that Father was unfit to parent his child due to his failure to address his mental health and substance abuse issues and his refusal to attend counseling and that it was in the child's best interest that Father's parental rights be terminated. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice was not clearly wrong in concluding that Father was unfit as a parent and that there was no substantial probability that the child could be placed in Father's care within a reasonable period of time. View "In re Elana W." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment of the superior court revoking Appellant's pension benefits and denying his request for return of his retirement contributions paid into the Employees' Retirement System of the State of Rhode Island (ERSRI), holding that the superior court erred in part.The superior court revoked Appellant's pension benefits, denied his request for return of his retirement contributions paid to the ERSRI, and ordered that retirement payments made to his spouse be applied towards his restitution obligations. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment in part, holding that the trial justice (1) did not err in revoking Defendant's pension benefits; (2) did not err in declaring that Appellant's spouse was an innocent spouse and awarding pension payments; (3) erred in directing the spouse to pay her payments as an innocent spouse towards Defendant's restitution obligations; and (4) vacated the portion of the judgment declining to apply Appellant's pension contributions to his restitution obligations. View "Retirement Board of Employees' Retirement System of State of R.I. v. Randall" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Father's parental rights to his daughter, holding that the the trial justice was not clearly wrong to conclude that there was parental unfitness and did not err in determining that termination of Father's parental rights was in the best interest of the child.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Father was not denied the effective assistance of counsel where Father failed to allege any basis for a finding that he did not knowingly give up his right to counsel; and (2) the trial justice did not err in finding that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of parental unfitness and that there was no substantial probability that the child could be placed in Father's care within a reasonable period of time. View "In re Mandy M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Respondents' parental rights to their daughter, holding that the findings of the family court justice were based on clear and convincing evidence and were not clearly wrong, nor did the justice overlook or misconceive material evidence.The family court justice concluded that it was in the best interest of the child that the parental rights of Respondents be terminated based on the finding of unfitness. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the family court justice did not err in (1) admitting into evidence a medical report prepared by Dr. Adebimpe Adewusi, the child's treating physician; (2) finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondents were unfit parents "by reason of conduct or conditions seriously detrimental to the child," in that they committed, or allowed to be committed, conduct toward the child "of a cruel and abusive nature"; and (3) finding that it was in the best interest of the child that Respondents' parental rights be terminated. View "In re Rylee A." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the family court denying, without prejudice, Mother's motion to intervene, as well as her motion to vacate or, in the alternative, to revoke a guardianship regarding her daughter, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the hearing justice properly granted the guardianship petition but affirmed without prejudice to Mother filing a motion to revoke the guardianship.A guardianship was filed on behalf of the individuals caring for the child and signed by Father, signifying his consent to the guardianship. The hearing justice granted the guardianship petition. Mother subsequently filed a motion to vacate, otherwise grant relief, or in the alternative, to revoke guardianship, arguing (1) her due process rights were violated because she was never served with process for either the neglect or guardianship petitions, and (2) the guardianship petition was granted in violation of statutory in law because she never gave written consent to the petition. The family court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) despite the lack of formal service of process, the petition was properly granted; and (2) under the circumstances, the hearing justice properly granted the guardianship petition without Mother's consent. View "In re Indiana M." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Mother's parental rights her to her daughter, holding that the family court justice's findings were not clearly wrong, and the justice did not overlook or misconceive material evidence.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not err by (1) failing to recuse herself from the trial after she ordered the filing of a petition to terminate Mother's parental rights; (2) finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Mother was an unfit parent; and (3) concluding that it was in the child's best interests to terminate Mother's parental rights to her. View "In re Adele B." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied and dismissed Defendant's appeal from an order of the family court denying what Father characterized as a motion to receive a child support credit for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits that were paid directly to Mother for the care of the parties' child, holding that this appeal was not properly before the Court.The Supreme Court noted that, even though Father's motion was styled as a motion for credit, it was, in fact, a motion to modify the amount of child support Father was obligated to pay. Because matters relating to the modification of child support are not appealable, the Supreme Court declined to reach the merits of the appeal because it was not properly before the Court. View "Evans v. Evans" on Justia Law