The DCYF recently succeeded in denying a natural grandfather the opportunity for placement and adoption of his grandson, after the natural father was found to be an unsuitable caretaker. Based on criminal and civil investigations, the DCYF initiated proceedings by taking the minor child from his natural father’s custody and placing him in a temporary foster home. The child’s grandfather attempted to have the child placed with him, both temporarily, and on a permanent basis. Proceeding without an attorney, the grandfather attempted to apply with the DCYF to have the child placed with him, although he did not follow the exact procedures required to make the request, and it was denied.

Later, the natural father’s rights were definitively and permanently terminated, and the child was adopted to an unrelated family, against the grandfather’s objections. The grandfather appealed to a higher court to challenge the denial of his attempts to adopt the child, seeking a declaratory judgment that would affirm that he had been wronged by the DCYF. On appeal, the court found that the grandfather lost all basis to challenge any of the courts’ determination because the father lost his parental rights, and at that point, the grandfather had no rights to the child. This ruling was made in spite of the fact that the grandfather started requesting placement and adoption long before the father’s rights were terminated.

Contact a Rhode Island Family Law Attorney for Immediate Assistance

The courts’ draconian and apparently unfair rulings stem in part from Rhode Island law’s insistence on procedural adherence, even when it buts up against fairness or any best-interest analysis. Although it seems unfair, it is a simple fact that the grandfather would have been more likely to succeed at his attempts to care for and adopt the child if he had hired a knowledgeable Rhode Island family law attorney to represent him from the start. If you or a loved one is interested in adoption or facing parental termination proceedings, the stakes are extremely high, and one strategic mistake could permanently doom your attempts. Reach out to a qualified Rhode Island family law attorney who works with Bilodeau Capalbo, and you can be sure that your case will be handled properly. Our experienced family lawyers understand Rhode Island courts’ reasoning in adoption and termination matters, and we can persuasively make your case to the court from the get-go. At Bilodeau Capalbo, we represent clients in all types of Rhode Island family law cases, including adoptions, termination proceedings, divorces, and custody claims. Contact us today to schedule a free consultation with an experienced Rhode Island family lawyer by calling 401-300-4055.

According to the court’s opinion, the respondent in the recently decided case is a woman who struggled for most of her life with addiction and abuse. The evidence showed that the respondent was abused as a child and driven into drug and alcohol use from a young age. In addition to her addiction, the respondent was involved in abusive relationships throughout her life. When the respondent was pregnant with the child at issue in this case, she and the father of the child were arrested for neglect which resulted in injuries to another child that they shared. As a result of the pending charges, as well as the respondent’s substance abuse problems and failure to have a safe home or obtain any prenatal care for her soon-to-be-born daughter, the Rhode Island Department of Children Youth and Families (DCYF) temporarily took the child from the mother when she was born, and placed her into a foster program.

Although the respondent attempted to make changes in her life and attended several programs for new mothers struggling with parenthood and substance abuse issues, she maintained her relationship with the abusive father of her children, and ultimately was sentenced to prison time for the neglect charge, which interrupted her attempts to gain permanent custody of the child. Based on the ongoing issues, the DCYF sought to permanently terminate her parental rights, arguing that there was not a reasonable probability that the child would be able to safely return to the mother’s care within a reasonable amount of time. The family court ruled that there was clear and convincing evidence that the respondent was an unfit parent, and her rights were terminated.

The respondent appealed the ruling to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, arguing in part that the higher standard of proof required to terminate parental rights, which is clear and convincing evidence of unfitness, was not met at trial. The high court disagreed with the respondent, and ruled that the 63-page family court ruling was supported by ample evidence that the respondent was unwilling or unable to maintain a safe environment for the child, and that her ongoing surreptitious relationship with the father of the child would continue to threaten the child’s safety. As a result of these findings, the respondent’s parental rights have been permanently terminated, and she will be unable to have a relationship with her daughter until the child reaches adulthood.

Find Competent Legal Representation in Termination and Adoption Proceedings

If you or a loved one are facing a parental termination proceeding, or seeking to take custody of a child in a dangerous situation, having a qualified Rhode Island family law attorney at your side can make all of the difference. The skilled family law attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo understand the nuances of child custody and adoption proceedings, and help clients defend their rights when it comes to their children. Call our offices at 401-300-4055 to talk to a Rhode Island family law attorney at Bilodeau Capalbo today.

The Facts of the Case

This was not the first time this particular case came before the Supreme Court of Rhode Island. In fact, the procedural history of the case is quite complex. To summarize the facts, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) moved to terminate Father’s parental rights after it was determined that his daughter was not provided a “minimum degree of care, supervision or guardianship.” At the time, the Father was incarcerated for murder. Father’s parental rights were ultimately terminated, based primarily on the fact that Father was imprisoned and his daughter had been in DCYF custody for 12 consecutive months. Evidence was also presented suggesting Father physically abused and neglected his daughter.

After the termination order, Father’s conviction for murder was reversed. Father then sought to appeal the decision terminating his parental rights. In opposition to Father’s request, DCYF offered the testimony of the daughter’s therapist.

The therapist was certified as an expert witness, and testified about a letter-writing exercise that she worked on with the daughter. In that exercise, the daughter was encouraged to express her feelings in a non-aggressive manner by writing a letter to Father. The letter voiced anger toward Father. However, because it was only an exercise, the letter was never sent. At the termination hearing, the expert discussed the exercise and read the letter into the record. The court later concluded that Father’s parental rights should remain terminated.

Father appealed the court’s decision on several grounds, one of which was the introduction of the letter into evidence. Father claimed that the letter was hearsay testimony that should have been barred from admission. The court, however, disagreed, holding that the letter was admissible under Rhode Island Rule of Evidence 803(d)(4), which allows statements to be admitted when they are made for medical diagnoses or treatment. The court explained that the letter-writing exercise was part of the daughter’s treatment, and fit squarely under Rule 803(d)(4). Thus, the therapist was permitted to discuss the letter and read it into the record.

Are Your Parental Rights at Stake?

If you are currently fighting to preserve your parental rights, contact the Rhode Island family law attorneys at the law firm of Bilodeau Capalbo. At Bilodeau Capalbo, we provide experienced representation to individuals seeking to protect their parental rights. We have over 35 years of experience assisting clients with their unique needs, and offer new clients a free consultation to discuss how we can help you with the situation you are currently facing. To learn more, call 401-300-4055 to schedule your free consultation today.

See Related Posts: Common Law Marriage in Rhode Island, Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Blog, December 12, 2018.

The Division of Property Following a Rhode Island Divorce, Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Blog, November 29, 2018.

Moving a case from criminal court to family court has both pros and cons for defendants. In most cases, the defendant will be given a lesser penalty in family court than they would in a criminal court. This is because the family court is more focused on rehabilitation and will usually order interventions like counseling, and other forms of treatment . Conversely, criminal defendants often have more rights during the process, including a right to counsel, and stricter rules of evidence that the state must follow. Your skilled Rhode Island family law attorney can help you understand how these differences will apply in your situation.

In the case at issue, a juvenile defendant was adjudicated by the family court for delinquency after being found responsible for two counts of second-degree child molestation sexual assault. The victims were under the age of 14. As part of the adjudication, the defendant was required to register as a sex offender.

Judicial Discretion and Sex Offender Registration

Rhode Island allows trial justices to waive sex-offender registration in certain circumstances. Specifically, Rhode Island statute allows registration to be waived when “the conduct of the parties is criminal only because of the age of the victim.” In this case, the defendant argues that the judge should have used their discretion to waive registration because the acts he engaged in would not be criminal if the victims were older.

The judge explained that this statute is meant to apply to so-called “Romeo and Juliet” situations. This is when the children are close in age (but under the age of consent) and they engage in “consensual” sexual contact. She pointed out that the element of coercion in this case and the significant age difference between the parties meant that she did not have the discretion to waive registration. The judge further stated that even if she did have discretion, she would not waive the requirement to register.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court here upheld the family court judge’s determination. They explained that the statute requires a two-step analysis. First, the trial judge needs to look at the case to determine whether the conduct was only criminal because of the age of the victims. Then, if that requirement is met, the judge may require registration for only as long as they feel it is necessary to rehabilitate the juvenile and protect the community.

The high court stated that clearly the legislature meant only in cases where the actions would not be criminal but for the age of the victim, or else every juvenile adjudicated delinquent for child molestation would be eligible for the relief. Here, the appeals court agreed with the trial court’s interpretation which meant that in cases where there is coercion, like this one, the first prong does not apply and thus she did not have discretion to waive registration.

Contact an Experienced Rhode Island Family Law Attorney Today!

If you have any family court issues, an experienced Rhode Island family law attorney should be our first call. The attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC can help answer any family court questions you may have. Call (401) 300-4055 or use the form on this web site to contact us today for a free consultation!

See Related Posts: Rhode Island Court Hears Case After Relationship (Rather Than Legal Marriage) Goes Sour Rhode Island Federal Court Discusses Procedures for Suing Insurance Companies

Requirements for Termination of Parental Rights

The law recognizes that parents and children have a strong bond that should only be disturbed in extreme circumstances. The termination of parental rights can only be granted if the state supports its allegations of parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence. In order to grant the termination, the state must also prove several things. First, DCYF has to show that the children have been out of the custody and care of their mother for at least 12 months. Second, DCYF needs to prove that they have made reasonable efforts to reunite the family, but despite these efforts, reunification would be inappropriate. Finally, the state must show that the termination is in the best interests of the children. Only once those elements have been proven can the judge grant the petition for termination.

Facts of the Case

In this case, the three children were removed from their mother due to positive drug screens at birth and other parenting and substance abuse issues. After DCYF got involved, they developed several parenting plans, but the mother would not cooperate and consistently failed to attend her appointments and visitations with the children. When she did attend the visits, DCYF workers noted that she was “not appropriate” with the children during the visits. The mother also failed to complete ordered substance abuse, mental health counseling, and parenting education programs. She also underwent two separate psychological evaluations, at which both doctors recommended further counseling and other mental health treatment. In her defense, the mother called witnesses to testify to her sobriety and parenting ability. The trial court granted the termination of rights and held that the requirements for termination were met.

Standards on Appeal

Once the family court has terminated a parent’s rights, the parent can appeal to the Supreme Court. However, the reviewing court can only overturn these decisions if the trial judge was “clearly wrong,” or they overlooked or misconstrued important evidence. Specifically, the mother argued that the trial judge erred by admitting both psychological evaluations, allowing testimony about a prior arrest, and declining to credit the mother’s compliance with DCYF’s plans. The Rhode Island Supreme Court sided with the trial court and held that the trial judge did not err materially, and the termination of parental rights was affirmed.

Contact an Experienced Rhode Island Family Law Attorney Today!

If you are being investigated by the Rhode Island DCYF, or if you believe that your child’s other parent is unfit, you should consult a skilled child custody attorney right away. The experienced attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, can help you understand your rights and help preserve your family bonds while keeping your children safe. Call (401) 300-4055 or use the form on this website to contact us today for a free consultation.

See Related Posts: Rhode Island Supreme Court Affirms Termination of Parental Rights to Mother Who Subjected Children to Abusive Husband Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds Family Court Rightly Terminated Father’s Parental Rights Following Abuse

On January 2, 2014, the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed a petition in Family Court, alleging that the parents “neglected” and “abused” their daughter. In that petition, DCYF specifically alleged that the parents failed to provide the child with a minimum degree of care, supervision, or guardianship; that the child was without proper parental care and supervision; that the parents inflicted or allowed to be inflicted physical injury upon the child; and that the parents created or allowed to be created a substantial risk of physical injury to the child. This summer, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the Family Court erred in finding that the mother abused and neglected the child.

A trial on the petition was held before a justice of the Family Court from June to September of 2014. After having reviewed the testimony and other evidence, the trial justice issued a written decision on November 10, 2014. In that decision, she preliminarily noted that the child suffered an oblique femur fracture to her right leg, which is highly unusual in a non-mobile child.

From the trial justice’s vantage point, there were too many unanswered questions and too many answers that did not fit the facts, including the child’s resulting injury. Having reviewed the medical testimony at trial, she was unpersuaded by the contention that the child fell off the bed; instead, she was convinced that the child’s injury was anything but accidental. Although the trial justice remarked that she was not certain as to how this injury occurred, she nonetheless found that there was no medical explanation to support the parents’ contention that the child was injured as a result of a fall from the bed. The trial justice ultimately concluded that there was no doubt that both parents know how this injury occurred but neither parent had told the truth.

The trial justice found that the child was neglected and abused by the mother and father, and she proceeded to order that the child be committed to the care, custody, and control of DCYF.

On appeal before the Rhode Island Supreme Court, the mother argued that the trial justice erred as a matter of law and abused her discretion in making these findings.

The state high court agreed and held that the trial justice erred in finding that the mother had abused and neglected the child. The court reasoned that the mother testified that she was not present at the time of her daughter’s injury, and no evidence to the contrary was presented.

The court held that the trial court’s conclusions that it was “bizarre and unusual” that the mother was “conveniently” out of the house running errands when the child was injured and that the mother did not specifically refer to her daughter by name during her testimony did not constitute adequate predicates for the finding of abuse and neglect. Nor, the court reasoned, should the fact that the mother chose not “to touch, hug, hold or console” the child in the brief moment she had until the emergency responders arrived have served as an indication of any such neglect or abuse. The state high court therefore concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to permit a reasonable inference to be drawn that the mother had abused the child.

For these reasons, the court vacated the decree of the Family Court as it pertained to the mother.

At Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, we are ready to help you defend your parental rights. Call 401-300-4055 or schedule your consultation with our caring Rhode Island family law team today.

More Blog Posts: Rhode Island Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Property Owner in Broken Staircase Injury Lawsuit Mistakes Dads Make During Divorce How to Prepare for High-Asset Divorce