Justia Rhode Island Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Richard Beverley Corbin, III (Bev) appealed a Family Court order on two post-final-judgment motions filed by plaintiff, Anne duPont Corbin. Defendant contended that the trial justice erred when she determined that the post-employment compensation that he received from his employer was marital property and therefore her award of 50 percent of it to Anne was also made in error. Alternatively, defendant argued that if the Supreme Court affirmed the trial justice’s findings with regard to the post-employment compensation, then the fee that he paid to an attorney for negotiating that compensation should be considered marital debt, of which Anne should pay half. Additionally, defendant argued that the trial justice erred when she awarded counsel fees to Anne for her prosecution of a motion to modify child support, after she made a specific finding that defendant did not adequately notify Anne when he regained employment. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Family Court. View "Corbin v. Corbin" on Justia Law

In March 2012, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) received a tip of an alleged incident of domestic violence that occurred in Massachusetts between respondent John S. and Malachii’s mother, which also involved Malachii. DCYF was informed that respondent attempted to quell his ten-month-old child’s crying by pinching, slapping, and throwing the child against a wall, which the mother claimed rendered the child unconscious. A petition for dependency and abuse was filed ex parte against both parents in Rhode Island, where Malachii resided, and respondent was charged in Massachusetts with felony crimes arising from the alleged assault. A no-contact order was issued prohibiting respondent from having any contact with Malachii. Respondent was convicted in Massachusetts by jury of reckless endangerment of a child and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to serve three to five years in prison, followed by a two-and-one-half-year probationary term. A second no-contact order was issued in Massachusetts after respondent’s conviction. Shortly thereafter, DCYF filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of respondent and Malachii’s mother. This case came before the Supreme Court on appeal of respondent when his parental rights were indeed terminated. Finding no error in the Family Court’s judgment terminating parental rights, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Malachii O." on Justia Law

Child came under the care of the State after an alleged alcohol relapse by Mother. At that time, Father was incarcerated. The Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed a petition alleging that Child was neglected. As to Father, the trial justice found by clear and convincing evidence that Father was unable to care for Child due to his confinement and that Father neglected Child by failing to provide Child with a minimum degree of care, supervision or guardianship and without proper parental care and supervision. The family court then ordered Child committed to the custody of DCYF. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that legally competent evidence existed to support the trial justice’s finding that Child had been neglected by Father. View "In re Kurt H." on Justia Law

In 2004, Livia was born to Marissa Levesque and Anthony Bucci. In 2013, Levesque and Derek Gray filed a petition for termination of Bucci’s parental rights and for the adoption of Livia by Gray. After a trial, the trial justice (1) terminated Bucci’s parental rights, deeming Bucci unfit based on abandonment grounds; and (2) granted Gray’s petition for adoption, finding it in Livia’s best interests. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial justice’s determination that Bucci abandoned Livia rested on sufficient factual findings and credibility determinations, which were supported by legally competent evidence. View "In re Livia B.L." on Justia Law

Husband filed a complaint for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. Wife counterclaimed for sole custody of the parties’ two minor children, alimony, child support, and equitable distribution of the marital assets. After a trial, the trial justice dissolved the parties’ marriage, awarded the parties joint custody of their children, granted Wife physical placement of both children, ordered Husband to pay child support, and partitioned the marital assets. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the decree in regard to the issue of child support, holding that the trial justice failed to consider the child-support guidelines when determining the amount of child support; and (2) affirmed the final decree in all other respects. Remanded. View "Vieira v. Hussein-Vieira" on Justia Law

After two separate trials, the family court entered decrees finding dependency as to Respondent’s sons, King and Saint, determining that the children were actually suffering or likely to suffer physical and/or emotional harm and that it was in the children’s best interest to be placed out-of-home. Both children were committed to the care, custody, and control of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families. Respondent appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decrees of the family court, holding that the trial justice’s findings of dependency as to both King and Saint were supported by clear and convincing evidence. View "In re King J." on Justia Law

The family court issued a decision granting the State’s petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to his two daughters. The family court justice finding by clear and convincing evidence that Father was an unfit parent, that the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) had fulfilled its obligation to make reasonable efforts to reunify Father with his daughters, that Father failed to cooperate with the services offered by DCYF, and that it would be in the best interests of the children that they be adopted by their foster parents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the family court justice’s findings were supported by legal and competent evidence. View "In re Briann A.T." on Justia Law

The family court entered a decree that terminated Respondent’s parental rights. The decree rested primarily on Respondent's criminal convictions, including a conviction for first-degree murder. While Respondent’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court vacated Respondent’s criminal convictions and corresponding sentences, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court vacated the decree terminating Respondent’s parental rights, holding that, without Respondent's criminal convictions and lengthy incarceration, the family court did not have sufficient factual support to find that Respondent was an unfit parent. Remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Izabella G." on Justia Law

Father and Mother were both dual citizens of the United States and the Republic of Ireland. The parties later divorced. In accordance with a property settlement agreement, the parties share joint custody of their three children, with Mother having physical placement. As part of the agreement, the parties stipulated that future child-custody disputes shall remain under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and that of the Rhode Island Family Court. The parties stayed with Mother in Ireland and visited Father in Rhode Island each summer. Father later filed three motions in the Rhode Island Family Court, including an ex parte emergency motion to modify custody and placement. The court granted the ex parte order. Mother moved to vacate the order and sought to dismiss the action on the grounds that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction where the children had resided in Ireland continuously for more than five years. After a hearing, The hearing justice declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the hearing justice abused her discretion in executing both steps of the necessary two-part analysis under section 15-14.1-19 of the UCCJEA and by declining jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens. View "Hogan v. McAndrew" on Justia Law

In 2003, Robert Loppi purchased a life insurance policy from United Investors Life Insurance Co. in which he initially named Marilyn Loppi, his wife, as the beneficiary. In 2008, after Marilyn filed for divorce from Robert, Robert applied to United Investors to change the beneficiary on his life insurance policy to his uncle, David Loppi. In 2009, during the course of the divorce proceeding, the family court entered an interlocutory order ordering that Robert’s life insurance policies be cashed in and that the cash surrender value be divided equally between Robert and Marilyn. Before Robert complied with the interlocutory order, Robert died. Thereafter, United Investors declined to pay the life insurance death benefit to either David or Marilyn. David filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that he alone was entitled to the life insurance policy death benefit. The hearing justice granted David’s petition for declaratory judgment stating that David was entitled to 100 percent of the policy proceeds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Marilyn was not entitled to any portion of the life insurance proceeds at issue. View "Loppi v. United Investors Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law