The trial court granted DCYF’s petition to terminate the mother’s parental rights. Specifically, DCYF had sufficiently proven that it offered the mother services to correct the situation that led to the separation, and the mother was unfit based on her “seriously detrimental” mental health symptoms. On appeal, the mother argued that the district court erred in finding that the DCYF made reasonable efforts at reunification when she was hospitalized. She further alleged that DCYF failed to offer services reasonably designed to address her mental health needs. However, the Rhode Island Supreme Court court rejected these claims.

The Reasonable Efforts Standard

As the court explained, DCYF must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it made “reasonable efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship” before a court can terminate a parent’s rights. Rhode Island courts must determine the reasonableness of DCYF’s efforts based on the particular facts of each case.

The Court’s Decision

Ultimately, the court found that the district judge did not err in determining the DCYF made reasonable efforts at reunification. DCYF made ongoing requests for the mother to sign releases, which the mother refused. Then, her hospitalization further impeded DCYF’s ability to communicate with her. Additionally, during her hospitalization, visitations with her child became virtually impossible because there was no opportunity for supervised visitation. Because DCYF made ongoing attempts to communicate despite these setbacks, the agency’s efforts were reasonable, given the unfortunate circumstances.

Provision of Mental Health Services

The court also rejected the mother’s argument that DCYF failed to employ “reasonable efforts” because it did not provide services during her hospitalization. As the court explained, the law does not require DCYF to act as the sole service provider to the parents of children in DCYF custody. Rather, DCYF can offer services, or the parent can receive them elsewhere. Because the mother was receiving mental health services at the hospital, DCYF had no obligation to provide additional services. The court also credited caseworkers’ testimony that the hospital staff would not acknowledge the mother’s presence at the hospital, meaning the DCYF would have to go to extraordinary lengths to work with staff to provide services. DCYF thereby met its burden of proving that the mother received services to correct the situation that led to her child’s removal. Accordingly, the high court upheld the district court’s decision to terminate the mother’s parental rights.

Skilled Legal Services for Parents in Custody Proceedings

If you or a loved one is undergoing a custody or termination proceeding, it is crucial that you have an experienced Rhode Island family law attorney to represent you. Trial judges may unfairly credit DCFY’s claims unless a skilled representative can advocate for your side of the story. The attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo possess years of experience navigating the complicated child welfare system to help reunite families. Through our compassionate representation, we will defend your right to maintain the care of your children. To schedule a free consultation and discuss your case, call us at 401-300-4055.

The appellant in the recently decided appeal is the father of a young child born in 2018. Based upon existing neglect and termination proceedings concerning the mother’s other children, the DCYF immediately opened a neglect case in regard to the child once they learned of the birth. As part of the neglect case, a case plan was developed to allow the father to demonstrate his fitness as a parent. The father and mother were no longer a couple when the neglect case was initiated, so the DCYF assigned individual case plans to each of the parents. The father, who allegedly admitted to selling drugs in the past to a DCYF-referred therapist, was instructed to abstain from drugs and alcohol and enter into substance abuse treatment with random drug screenings as part of the case plan.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the father attempted to comply with many portions of the case plan, attending parenting classes and supervised visits with the child. The father did not, however, submit proof that he attended a substance abuse evaluation or provide drug screening results as expected. While the case plan was in effect, the father was arrested for possession of heroin and incarcerated. In response to his arrest and incarceration, the DCYF chose to pursue termination proceedings against the father. A trial was held on the matter, where the family court determined that the father was unfit to parent the child, that he was unlikely to become a fit parent in a reasonable amount of time, and that the child’s current placement in a foster home was healthy and likely to result in an adoption. Based on those findings, the family court entered an order terminating the father’s parental rights.

The father appealed the termination of his parental rights to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, arguing that the terms and conditions of his case plan were not clearly laid out and that he substantially complied with the case plan to demonstrate his fitness as a parent. The appellate court acknowledged that the father took action in compliance with the case plan and may have attempted to obtain substance abuse treatment and drug screenings, but he did not sufficiently comply with the case plan as a whole. The appellate court further found that the father’s subsequent arrest and conviction for a serious drug crime while participating in the case plan was a firm determiner as to his unfitness as a parent. As a result of the high court decision, the father’s parental rights will remain permanently terminated.

If you or a loved one has been confronted with a Rhode Island child welfare investigation or termination proceeding, the development of a case plan in conjunction with the DCYF is an important part of retaining your parental rights and regaining custody of your children. The knowledgeable family law and child welfare attorneys with Bilodeau Capalbo, LLP understand how to assist our clients in developing a reasonable case plan with DCYF, and we can ensure that your compliance with the plan is relayed to the family court. With our guidance and support, you can protect your parental rights and prevent the DCYF or courts from taking your children away. If you have questions about a Rhode Island family law issue, we’re here to help. Call us at 401-300-4055 for a free consultation.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the child who is at issue in this case was born in July 2013 and was brought to the attention of the DCYF shortly after her birth. The child was born with high levels of addictive substances in her system, and she required medical care as a newborn to prevent withdrawals. For the first several years of her life, the child would go between living with her parents and living in temporary foster homes, as the DCYF worked with the parents to assist them with learning how to care for their daughter.

After several years of back-and-forth, and a continual 12-month time period where the DCYF heard nothing from the father while his child was in foster care, the agency decided to seek permanent termination of the father’s parental rights. After a trial, the father’s rights were terminated. The trial judge determined that the father was not cooperative enough with the agency in making behavioral changes to allow him to safely care for his daughter. Additionally, the judge noted that the daughter was thriving in her foster home and wished to stay there permanently. With these findings, the court entered an order terminating the father’s rights, which would set up the child to be adopted by her foster family.

The father appealed the trial court’s ruling, arguing that he adequately followed the required plans and programs, and was capable of safely caring for his daughter. The high court was unconvinced, noting that the father failed to attend several drug treatment appointments and drug tests, as well as other required programs. Because the high court saw no issue with the trial judge’s determination that the father was an unfit parent, the ruling will stand.

Legal Counsel for Parents Facing Termination Proceedings

If you or a loved one is considering adoption or facing a child welfare proceeding, retaining an attorney who understands Rhode Island adoption law is essential. The qualified Rhode Island family lawyers with Bilodeau Capalbo understand how Rhode Island courts make decisions in child welfare and adoption cases, and with our experience, you can be confident in obtaining the results you desire Contact our offices at 401-300-4055 today for a no-obligation consultation to discuss your Rhode Island family case.

The mother attended weekly supervised visits with her son. However, it was later discovered that the mother’s stepfather was present during one of the visits. A family court concluded that the mother had not demonstrated an ability to protect her son, and DCYF filed a petition to terminate her parental rights, who had been in DCYF’s care for over twelve months. A family court later terminated the mother’s parental rights. The mother appealed the decision.

Termination of Parental Rights

A parent’s parental rights to his or her child may be terminated in Rhode Island if a family court determines that the parent is unfit by clear and convincing evidence. If a court determines that a parent is unfit, the court must determine whether the termination of parental rights is in the child’s best interests.

The Court’s Decision

In this case, the court found that DCYF had made reasonable efforts to reunify the child and the mother, that she failed to comply with the case plans by failing to attend counseling and move out of her stepfather’s house. Thus, the court found that the evidence supported that the mother was unfit due to “her failure to fully engage in the services provided by DCYF and lack of protective capacity.” The court also upheld that it was in the child’s best interests that the mother’s parental rights be terminated. The court found that the child had been in the care of DCYF since shortly after his birth, he had established a familial connection in his foster home, he was in what would be a pre-adoptive home if freed for adoption, he had bonded with his foster family, and was reaching all developmental milestones. Thus, the termination of parental rights would allow the child to have “a safe and nurturing environment in which to live, learn, and grow.”

Rhode Island Family Law Attorneys

If you are facing a Rhode Island family law matter, it is important to consult an experienced attorney. At Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, our Rhode Island family law attorneys maintain close and trusting relationships with our clients, and we have a strong reputation for client satisfaction. Our lawyers are here to listen to your needs and advocate for the solution that you seek. We have offices in West Warwick, South Kingstown, and Hartford. Call us at 401-300-4055 or use our online form to set up an appointment.

According to the relevant part of the statute, Rhode Island General Laws 1956 § 15-7-7, explains the court shall terminate any and all legal rights of a parent to a child if the court finds:

• With clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit by conduct or conditions detrimental to the child
• The child has been in legal custody or care with DCFY for at least 12 months, and the parents were offered services to remedy the situation that brought the children into care.

In this case, DCFY argues that the mother exhibited seriously detrimental conduct to her children, and future appropriate care is improbable. In support of its position, DCFY presented evidence that visits with the children were chaotic. The mother resisted signing releases for the children to obtain services. She frequently missed visitations or showed up late. Moreover, the woman’s oldest child stated that he enjoyed the family he was placed with and did not desire to return to his biological mother or father.

On appeal, the court noted that while natural parents have a fundamental interest in their children’s care, custody, and management, the interest is not absolute. Parents’ rights are counterparts to the responsibilities they have assumed. Among several contentions, the mother argued that DCFY failed to establish that it made reasonable efforts to reunify. However, the court found that DCFY accomplished this standard by creating four sets of service plans and opportunities for meaningful visitation and making referrals for services. As such, the court ultimately concluded that the trial justice did not err in finding that DCFY met their burdens.

Reach Out to a Rhode Island Family Law Lawyer to Schedule a Free, No-Obligation Consultation Today

If you face the termination of your parental rights or need assistance with another family law matter, contact the Rhode Island family law attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC. The lawyers at our office have extensive experience favorably resolving family law cases on behalf of our clients. Our firm handles cases stemming from Rhode Island custody and support matters, property division, divorce, marital agreements, modifications, paternity, and protective orders. Contact our office at 401-300-4055 to schedule a free and confidential consultation to discuss your Rhode Island family law matter with an experienced attorney.

In the recently decided case, the Respondent is the natural father to a child born in October 2016. According to the court’s opinion, the child was taken into DCYF custody shortly after birth because of issues with both parents’ ability to care for her. Evidently, one of the mother’s previous children had died in an accident related to child neglect, and the father had apparent drug and alcohol problems, as well as a history of domestic violence.

After the DCYF took custody of the child, a reunification plan was put into place to allow the father to regain custody of the child. As part of the reunification plan, the father needed to attend several parenting and substance abuse classes and attend supervised visits with the daughter to introduce him to the child and help him with parenting skills.

Although the father substantially complied with some of the terms of the reunification plan, he ignored or abandoned other requirements. In addition to this, his lifestyle continued to suggest that he was an unfit parent in the eyes of DCYF. DCYF initiated proceedings to terminate the father’s parental rights on the grounds of child neglect. Shortly after the child’s second birthday, a trial was held on DCYF’s petition, and the trial judge found that the father had not corrected the problems that resulted in the child being taken away and that his failure to take accountability and seek to change his behavior made him an unfit parent. Because the child had been placed with extended family and had acclimated well to her new environment, the court decided to terminate the father’s parental rights, paving the way for the child to be adopted by her aunt and uncle.

The father appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court, where the trial court judgment was affirmed. Notably, the high court found that while the father participated in some of the required programs, he was unable or unwilling to fully cooperate with the service providers or follow through with their recommendations. Additionally, the father failed to obtain a substance abuse evaluation, secure full-time employment, or obtain suitable housing as recommended. Agreeing with the trial court on these issues, the high court affirmed the decision to terminate the father’s parental rights, suggesting that it would be in the best interest of the child to remain permanently in the care of her paternal uncle and aunt through an adoption proceeding.

Do You Seek a Rhode Island Family Law Attorney?

If you or a loved one is seeking to adopt a child who was placed in your temporary care, or if you are facing neglect charges or termination proceedings, it is essential to have a qualified Rhode Island family law attorney by your side. The knowledgeable and compassionate family law attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo understand the factors that are most important to Rhode Island family courts in addressing child welfare issues, and with the advice and representation of one of our attorneys, you can be sure that the proper steps are taken to keep a child safe and in your care. Call us at 401-300-4055 to discuss your case and schedule a free consultation with a qualified Rhode Island family law attorney.

In the recently decided case, the respondent is the father of a minor child who had been placed in foster care shortly after her birth in 2014 because the parents were “red-flagged” by the state Department of Youth and Families for instances of abuse against other children in their care. Between 2014 and 2016, the Department instituted a plan for the respondent to demonstrate his fitness to safely and effectively parent his child in order to assume custody of the child. According to testimony from the termination proceedings, the respondent repeatedly refused to cooperate with the Department in formulating and following through on the reunification plan. The respondent would have some visitation with the child. However, he did not attend classes as requested by the Department, and he was repeatedly incarcerated for short periods of time and unable to attend to the reunification plan or visit the child.

After months of attempted reunification, the Department ultimately sought to terminate the respondent’s parental rights so that the child could be adopted into the foster home where she had lived most of her life. The Department argued that the respondent was unfit to parent the child as he was uncooperative with the Department plan and unable to keep himself out of jail long enough to have a relationship with his daughter. The Department also argued that the child was happy in her foster family and that they desired to adopt her into their home permanently if she was placed up for adoption.

The family court ruled, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court ultimately agreed, that the father was not fit to parent his daughter. Although the father argued that it was the mother and his relationship with her that was the real threat to the child (and that he had permanently terminated such relationship), the courts were not convinced that he would be able to parent the child. Additionally, the evidence that the child thrived in her foster home environment and would benefit greatly by being adopted by her foster parents weighed heavily on the court’s decision. By the time the supreme court was ready to rule on the appeal last year, the child had already been adopted and was doing well with her new family. As a result of this, as well as the lack of evidence of any mistakes made by the family court in its initial ruling, the decision to terminate the father’s parental rights was affirmed.

Competent Legal Counsel is Essential in Parental Termination and Adoption Proceedings

If you or a loved one is seeking to adopt a child, facing a parental termination proceeding, or working with the Rhode Island Department of Youth and Families to regain custody of your child, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Having the advice and counsel of a trusted Rhode Island family law attorney from Bilodeau Capalbo can make the difference in your case. Our skilled advocates understand how family court judges reach their decisions, and we can advise your choices and help argue your case to obtain the result you desire. We represent clients in all types of family law proceedings, including divorce, custody, adoption, as well as parental termination proceedings. Contact Bilodeau Capalbo at 401-300-4055 today to schedule a no-obligation consultation and discuss your case.

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.

According to the court’s opinion, when the daughter was two years old, Department of Children, Youth, and Families (the Department) filed a petition seeking to terminate the mother’s parental rights to her daughter. The Department claimed that the daughter had been in its custody or care for twelve months or more, that the mother had been offered services, and that there was not a substantial probability that the daughter could be returned to the mother within a reasonable period of time.

Evidently, the mother had been hospitalized at least fifteen times and had attempted to commit suicide multiple times. An expert psychologist testified that he diagnosed the mother with bipolar disorder with psychotic features. On appeal, the mother argued that the family court was incorrect in finding the Department made reasonable efforts to provide the mother with services, that the mother was unfit, and that the termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the child.

Biological parents have a right to custody of their children. However, if a parent is found to be unfit, the state may be able to terminate the rights of the biological parents if reasonable efforts have been made to reunify the parent with the child and that it is in the best interests of the child to terminate parental rights. Under Rhode Island law, a parent is deemed unfit if the parent “exhibited behavior or conduct that is seriously detrimental to the child, for a duration” that makes it unlikely for the parent to care for the child “for an extended period of time.”

The family court found that the mother was unfit because she failed to follow through with the treatment, including failing to address her substance abuse and her need for mental health treatment. The court also found the state made reasonable efforts to reunify the mother with the daughter, including arranging visitations, and making referrals to services for substance abuse, mental health treatment, parenting, and others. The court further found that it was in the daughter’s best interests to terminate the mother’s parental rights, because although the court found that the mother clearly loved her daughter, the child would become very upset when she was with her mother, and her mother was unable to care for her. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the termination of the mother’s rights.

Contact a Rhode Island Divorce Attorney

If you need legal representation in a divorce case or other family law case, contact an experienced Rhode Island family law attorney. Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC represents clients in Rhode Island in family court cases. Our attorneys can help you make sure that your voice is heard in a settlement agreement, custody arrangement, and any other family law case. We have offices in West Warwick and South Kingstown, Rhode Island, as well as in Connecticut. Call us at 401-300-4055 or fill out our online form to arrange an appointment with a family law attorney today.

In order for the state to terminate parental rights, they must establish one of the facts outlined in Rhode Island Statutes section 15-7-7. The list of reasons for which the state can terminate a parent’s rights is not limited by those laid out in section 15-7-7. Instead, the statute provides examples of situations where termination may be appropriate. For example, if a parent is found to have willfully neglected the needs of a child for at least one year despite being financially able to meet them, the state may move to terminate parental rights. Other examples include:

• a parent’s long-term imprisonment;
• a parent’s abusive conduct toward a child;
• the child’s placement with the department for children, youth, and families for 12 months due to a parent’s substance abuse issue, when it does not appear as though the child will be able to return to the parent within a reasonable amount of time; or
• when a parent’s other child or children have been placed in the custody of the department for children, youth and families, and it does not appear that providing additional services to the parent will result in reunification within a reasonable amount of time.

Importantly, in order to terminate parental rights, the state must prove the above facts by clear and convincing evidence.

Defenses to the Termination of Parental Rights

As noted above, Rhode Island courts are not quick to terminate a parent’s rights. And even if termination proceedings have begun, that does not mean that the court will end up terminating someone’s parental rights. In most cases, parents who have termination proceedings filed against them have every intention of being good parents to their children, but have faced insurmountable hurdles in life. With the assistance of a dedicated Rhode Island family law attorney, parents may be able to effectively advocate for their parental rights by providing rational explanations for the unfortunate situations they have had to face.

Are You Facing the Termination of Your Parental Rights?

If you are currently facing the termination of your parental rights, contact the dedicated Rhode Island family law attorneys at the law firm of Bilodeau Capalbo. At Bilodeau Capalbo, we proudly represent clients who are struggling to maintain their parental rights. We have extensive experience handling termination hearings, and all other aspects of Rhode Island family law. To learn more, and to schedule a free consultation today, call 401-300-4055 to schedule a free consultation today.

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

Rhode Island Intestate Laws and the Importance of Drafting a Will, Rhode Island Divorce Lawyer Blog, December 28, 2018.

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.

Facts of the Case

Here, the stepfather of two boys filed a petition to adopt them. Their biological father was incarcerated during these proceedings. He objected to the adoption by the stepfather so the children’s mother and stepfather moved to have his rights terminated. The mother of the children testified that the biological father of the children had not visited the children in over two years and had never paid child support. Even when he was not incarcerated, she testified, his presence in the children’s lives was rare. The biological father argued that he did at times see the children and provide gifts when he was able to. The boys – ages 14 and 15 – also testified that they rarely saw their biological father. They further testified that their stepfather had been a constant and positive presence in their lives for the last eight years and they wanted him to become their adoptive father. The family court found that terminating the biological father’s parental rights and allowing the stepparent adoption would be in the best interests of the children.

Involuntary Termination of Rights

Biological parents are automatically granted important rights to visit and parent their children. However, if the parent “abandons” the children then their rights can be terminated. Abandonment is defined by Rhode Island statute as “a lack of communication or contact with the child for at least a six month period.” On appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court here held that the family court was correct and the children’s biological father had met the conditions for abandonment.

However, the overarching principle in family court proceedings is always “the best interests of the child.” That means that the court will take all of the circumstances into account to determine what outcome would serve the children best. Here, due in part to the testimony of the children and the general absence of their biological father, the court held that allowing the stepparent adoption to go forward would be in the best interests of the children. Therefore, the appeals court upheld the family court’s termination of the biological father’s parental rights and granted the adoption petition of the stepfather.

Hire an Experienced Rhode Island Family Law Attorney to Help You!

Adoption is a great way to build or grow a family, but it is also a legal process. That’s why it’s so important to work with a skilled Rhode Island family law attorney. The adoption attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, can help you to get the legal recognition that your family deserves. Call (401) 300-4055 or use the form on this web site to contact us today for a free consultation!

See Related Posts: U.S. House Committee Passes Amendment that Allows Discrimination Against LGBTQ People in Adoption and Foster Care In Rhode Island, Negligent Misrepresentation Applies in the Adoption Context

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

Which Rights Do Grandparents Have?

Generally, parents are in charge of all of the decision making regarding their children, including whether their grandparents are allowed to see them. However, there are some circumstances in which the court may grant visitation to grandparents even over the objection of the parents.

Family courts use a standard of the “best interest of the child” to make their determinations. Therefore, in order to get visitation, the judge must believe it would be in the best interest of the child. However, the grandparents must also meet four other criteria.

First, the grandparents need to prove that they are physically and mentally capable of caring for a child. Second, they must have reasonably attempted to visit the child within the last three months but without success. Third, the parent or parents must have used unreasonable means to prevent the child from visiting the grandparents. Finally, the grandparents must have tried to find alternative solutions to this problem that have also been unsuccessful.

Grandparent Custody

The visitation provisions above presume that the parent(s) who have custody of the child are fit parents. The situation becomes very different when the parents are allegedly abusing or neglecting the child, whether due to drug addiction or other reasons. If the court agrees that the parents are not able to care for the child safely, DCYF will often look to grandparents or other “kinship care” (care by friends and relatives) first for custody of the children. As above, though, judges will look at all of the circumstances to determine what would be in the best interests of the children. If the child does have a fit parent who is able to care for the child, their rights to the child will usually prevail over the grandparents’ rights. However, everything is dependent on the specific circumstances of your case. A knowledgeable family law attorney can help you make your case persuasively to the judge.

What Should Concerned Grandparents Do?

If you are in Rhode Island, and you are concerned that any child – whether your grandchild or someone else – is being abused or neglected, call DCYF at 1(800) RI-CHILD as soon as possible. You should call 911 if the kids are in immediate danger. Once the immediate emergency has passed, you should contact a skilled Rhode Island grandparents’ rights attorney. A lawyer can help you make your case to the judge for custody or visitation.

Contact a Knowledgeable Grandparents’ Rights Attorney

If you are a grandparent seeking visitation or custody of your grandchild, a skilled family law attorney can help you exercise any rights you may have. Our experienced attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, can help you try to attain a favorable result for your grandchild. Call us today at (401) 300-4055 or use the contact form on this website for your free consultation!

Related Posts: Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds Family Court Rightly Terminated Father’s Parental Rights Following Abuse Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds Family Court Erroneously Found Mother Neglected Child

In July 1985, the mother placed her three-year-old daughter in the DFC’s care, stating that she was unable to care for her due to the daughter’s aggressive behavior. In foster care, the daughter alleged that she had been sexually abused by her parents, whom she called the “bad people.”

In August 1985, the mother told DCF that she did not want visitation with her eldest daughter. Based on the eldest child’s allegations of sexual abuse, the Family Court issued an ex parte order of detention, placing the daughter and her two younger sisters in temporary DFC custody. That November, a DCF caseworker established a plan for the parents to have visitation with their eldest daughter. The parents refused to sign the plan at the request of their lawyer.

In January 1986, a commitment trial was held, after which the parents and DCF entered into a consent decree establishing a finding of dependency. The eldest daughter was committed to the DCF until further court order.

In June 1986, the DCF caseworker presented a case plan for reunification. On July 2, 1986, the plan was approved by the Family Court and executed by both petitioners. The Family Court suspended all parental visitation for 6 months while the family went to counseling.

After 6 months of no communication from either petitioner, the DCF filed a petition to terminate parental rights pursuant to G.L. 1956 (1981 Reenactment) § 15-7-7(c). After a November 1987 trial, the petition was granted. The parents appealed that decree.

On appeal, the petitioners first argued that the trial judge had misconceived material evidence when he found that their conditions were unlikely to change. The Rhode Island Supreme Court disagreed. It held that the trial judge did not misconceive the evidence pursuant to the controlling statute when he’d held that the parents were unwilling to chance the conditions that caused their daughter’s placement in DCF.

The court reasoned that the facts plainly established that DCF made reasonable efforts to reunite the family. The caseworker emphasized the importance of therapy, and DCF offered to replace a counselor that the father didn’t like. DCF further always assumed responsibility for driving both parents to Parents United meetings. DCF offered to provide childcare for the mother’s fourth child while she attended counseling. Thus, the trial court did not err in finding that the conditions leading to the eldest daughter’s commitment were unlikely to change.

Petitioners further argued that the trial judge erred when he admitted hearsay statements made by the eldest daughter regarding the alleged sexual abuse. First, the petitioners contended that the daughter’s competency had not been established. Second, they argued that her extrajudicial statements to the caseworker were not admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule. The state high court disagreed.

Regarding the child’s competency as a witness, the court had previously held that the statute didn’t require the child to be found competent before her statement could be admitted into evidence.

The court had also addressed the hearsay-exception issue in a previous case. There, the state high court held that when such a hearsay statement was made spontaneously, within a reasonable time after the act is alleged to have occurred, and was made to someone the child would normally turn to for protection, that statement is a hearsay exception under § 14-1-69.

The court held that the testimony clearly established that the eldest daughter trusted her caseworker for protection. Because of the daughter’s constant fear that her mother would harm her, she often insisted that the caseworker be with her during parental visitation. Thus, here statements were within the guidelines prescribed by the statute.

The parents’ appeal was accordingly denied and dismissed.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC’s skilled family law attorneys are prepared to assist Rhode Island fight for their parental rights. Call 401-300-4055 to schedule your complimentary consultation today.

More Blog Posts: In Rhode Island, Negligent Misrepresentation Applies in the Adoption Context Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds That Defendant is Entitled to an Annuity Policy Rhode Island Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Property Owner in Broken Staircase Injury Lawsuit

Respondent’s first six children were born to different fathers. Since at least 1997, the father of the youngest child and the respondent herself had been involved in a rocky and abusive relationship. Respondent and the father of her youngest child were married but living separately. Respondent’s husband physically abused her and her children. In 1997, a family court judge found that five of the respondent’s children had unexplained bruises and concluded that her husband was the abuser.

The Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) became involved with this family in January 1997 after learning that the respondent’s husband had abused one of respondent’s children. Between 1997 and 2000, the DCYF prepared eight case plans for the family. The plan emphasized the need to keep the husband away from the respondent and her children. DCYF also referred the respondent to numerous agencies to aid her with housing and psychological issues.

On March 2000, the DCYF petitioned the family court to terminate the respondent’s parental rights to the six children pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 15-7-7(a)(3). Following a hearing, a family court found that the DCYF made reasonable efforts to encourage the parental relationship and granted the petition.

Before terminating a parent’s rights under § 15-7-7(a)(3), a family court judge must find that the parents were offered or received services to correct the situation which led to the child being placed. On appeal, respondent argued that the DCYF failed to make reasonable efforts to unify her with her family before petitioning to terminate her parental rights.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that DCYF offered a number of services to help the respondent resolve her family issues, including child protection, domestic violence, parenting skills and, housing and employment. DCYF referred the respondent to at least ten different agencies and professionals to address her problems. The respondent, however, did not keep her appointments. Through her actions, the court held that the respondent demonstrated a reluctance to keep her children away from her husband who abused her family.

Respondent claimed that she suffered from Battered Women’s Syndrome (BWS) and, therefore, DCYF had an affirmative duty to keep the abusive father away from her family. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has recognized BWS as a mental condition that has legal consequences. However, a party suffering from BWS must prove its existence by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, the respondent offered no evidence at trial to establish that she suffered from BWS. Therefore, the state high court held she waived the issue.

For these reasons, the court denied the appeal and affirmed the family court judgment.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC’s seasoned family law team is prepared to aid Rhode Island residents with a range of family law issues. Call 401-300-4055 to schedule your complimentary consultation today.

More Blog Posts: Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds That Defendant is Entitled to an Annuity Policy Rhode Island Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Property Owner in Broken Staircase Injury Lawsuit Mistakes Dads Make During Divorce

Originally, DCYF was informed that the father attempted to quell his 10-month-old child’s crying by pinching, slapping, and throwing the child against a wall, which the mother claimed rendered the child unconscious. This past winter, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the Family Court had correctly terminated the father’s parental rights.

On March 7, 2012, a petition for dependency and abuse was filed ex parte against the parents in Rhode Island, where they both reside, and the father was charged in Massachusetts with felony crimes arising from the alleged assault. A no-contact order was issued on March 14, 2012 and entered on April 26, 2012, which prohibited the father from having any contact with the minor. On September 27, 2013, the father was convicted of reckless endangerment of a child and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon in Massachusetts by a jury.

On November 25, 2013, DCYF filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the parents. The father declined to voluntarily relinquish his parental rights, and the case proceeded to trial on September 22 and 29, 2014. The father remained incarcerated in Massachusetts. At trial, the Family Court justice heard testimony from a social caseworker. Due to the circumstances, including the father’s status as a child abuser, the social worker testified that the father was not a parent that DCYF was looking to reunify with his child at the time.

The Family Court justice issued a written decision on January 5, 2015, and ordered the termination of the father’s parental rights. The court was satisfied that the father (respondent) had notice of the termination petition and was adequately represented by counsel. The father appealed.

Before the Rhode Island Supreme Court, the father claimed that many of the Family Court justice’s factual findings were clearly erroneous. For instance, he pointed to the finding that the paternity testing was requested because the father contested paternity; the father professed that he requested paternity to establish his rights. However, the state high court held that it was undisputed that the father requested a paternity test to verify the one fact that a paternity test discloses—whether he was the child’s father.

The father also maintained that he never received the results of that test. However, the caseworker testified that she forwarded the results to the Family Court, and the record disclosed that the father wrote to the caseworker less than a month later asking that the child be placed with his family. Regardless, the father’s receipt of the results was immaterial to the Family Court justice’s findings.

The father next claimed that a certified copy of his conviction was not produced at trial. The court was satisfied that this circumstance was not material because neither ground for termination required proof of conviction, and the conviction was corroborated by the caseworker and the father’s testimony.

The father also posited that the return of service was neither stamped nor notarized and that he was not arraigned on the petition. However, a careful review of the record revealed that the father was never found in default; that he was represented by counsel throughout the pendency of the termination petition; and that he was afforded an opportunity to participate at the trial over telephone. The court was satisfied that these arguments were immaterial to the outcome of the case.

The father next argued that the Family Court justice erroneously found that he was unable to care for his son for an extended period of time due to his imprisonment and, alternatively, that he abandoned the child. Specifically, the father claimed that he was not advised about the minor’s status and that his incarceration and the no-contact orders prevented him from providing support to the child.

With respect to his incarceration as a ground for termination, the father argued that DCYF failed to establish that it made reasonable efforts to strengthen the parental relationship between the father and the child. Because the state high court believed that the Family Court justice correctly concluded that respondent abandoned his son, it did not feel the need to address the incarceration additional basis for termination.

As the Family Court justice explicitly acknowledged, the father’s incarceration was a direct result of inflicting physical abuse on the child. DCYF, the Rhode Island Supreme Court explained, has no obligation to undertake reasonable efforts to strengthen the parental bond or to reunify, when a parent is deemed unfit on the basis of abandonment. Accordingly, the lack of contact and communication fell squarely on the father. The record clearly indicated that the respondent had the addresses for both the Family Court and DCYF, and he was also represented by counsel in Massachusetts. Yet, despite additional opportunities, the respondent made but two attempts to communicate with DCYF and utterly failed to seek contact with his child. Therefore, the court was satisfied that the Family Court justice properly held that the father had effectively abandoned the minor because he had had no meaningful contact with his son since March 2012.

The caring family law attorneys at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC are eager to help you defend your parental rights. Call 401-300-4055 or schedule your complimentary consultation today.

More Blog Posts: Mistakes Dads Make During Divorce How to Prepare for High-Asset Divorce How to Create a Summer Custody Schedule

On November 19, 2013, the petitioners filed two adoption petitions in Family Court so that one petitioner might become the legal father of the other petitioner’s two children. The respondent, and legal father of the children at the time, was incarcerated in Massachusetts and refused to consent to the adoptions. As a result, petitioners moved to terminate respondent’s parental rights with respect to the two children. A trial was held before a Family Court justice on August 14, September 3, September 10, and December 15 of 2014. The trial justice ultimately terminated respondent’s parental rights. This past winter, the Rhode Island Supreme Court upheld the termination, holding that respondent abandoned his children.

The trial justice indicated that respondent’s lack of contact with and financial support for the children was “painfully evident,” noting that there was such a lack even when respondent was not incarcerated. Specifically, the justice found that respondent’s last contact with both children was on November 9, 2011, that he had never provided child support, and only sent occasional gifts.

The trial justice pointed to respondent’s long history of incarceration and the petitioners’ and children’s wishes as being significant factors in her decision. She ultimately found, by clear and convincing evidence, that respondent was unfit as a parent because he had “failed to provide support for these two children, and had failed to have any contact with them for a period of more than six months prior to the filing of the Adoption Petition. The trial justice further found that it would be in the best interests of the children to terminate respondent’s parental rights so that their stepfather might adopt them. On the same day, she entered a decree terminating respondent’s parental rights.

On appeal, respondent contended that the trial justice erred in finding: (1) that he was unfit where unfitness had not been alleged as a ground in the petition; (2) that he had the financial ability to provide proper care, maintenance and support during his incarceration; and (3) that termination of his parental rights would serve the best interests of the children.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court held that respondent’s first argument was unavailing. Respondent never objected to petitioners’ submission of evidence to the Family Court on the issues of unfitness, willful neglect to provide proper care, maintenance and support, or abandonment. Nor did he ever object to petitioners’ purported failure to specify these statutory grounds in the adoption petition. Upon a thorough review of the record, the court saw nothing that would cause it to make an exception to their well-settled raise or waive jurisprudence. Accordingly, it was their view that respondent’s first contention on appeal had been waived.

The court further held that respondent’s remaining arguments were similarly unconvincing and need not be addressed at any length because respondent’s parental rights were properly terminated on the ground of abandonment. The state high court has on numerous occasions upheld the termination of parental rights of parents who were incarcerated—as respondent had been for a substantial portion of the children’s lives. An incarcerated parent who fails to actively engage in efforts to contact his or her child despite having opportunities to do so runs the very real risk of it being held that the parent has abandoned the child.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the findings of fact of the trial justice, the Rhode Island Supreme Court concluded that the trial court did not err in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent had abandoned the children for the six-month period. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decree of the Family Court terminating the respondent’s parental rights with respect to the children.

At Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, our knowledgeable family law attorneys are ready to get started helping you defend your parental rights. Call 401-300-4055 or schedule your consultation 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

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