Articles Posted in Family Law

The State of Rhode Island has enacted administrative and legal methods for intervening in a parent’s parental and custodial rights if a child is being neglected or abused. Generally, the state Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) will be notified about the suspicion of child abuse or neglect, and then begin an investigation. If the DCYF investigators confirm that it appears abuse or neglect is occurring, the agency can petition a Family Court to intervene and place the child in a safe custodial environment while the DCYF and the parents attempt to resolve the allegedly abusive or neglectful environment. If the parents fail to meet the expectations of the DCYF caseworkers, the agency may seek to permanently terminate the parent’s parental rights to place the children in the permanent custody of another person who the state sees as fitter to care for the child. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently affirmed a Family Court’s decision to permanently terminate the parental rights of a man who was found unfit to parent his child.

The appellant in the recently decided appeal is the natural father of a nine-year-old boy who has been the subject of a DCYF investigation that was opened in 2018 as a result of the appellant reporting the child’s mother for neglect. As part of their investigation, the DCYF convinced the family court to temporarily place the child in the custody of his maternal grandmother. In late 2018, the DCYF created a case plan for the father to participate in to demonstrate his ability to properly care for the child as his primary custodian. The DCYF requested that the father attend substance abuse and mental health treatment, and participate in supervised visits through a parenting program. Although the father did attend some treatment appointments and scheduled visits, he ultimately abandoned the case plan.

In January 2020, the DCYF filed a petition to terminate the father’s parental rights and have the child permanently placed in the care of his grandmother. After a six day trial, the Family Court granted the DCYF petition, finding that the father was not fit to care for his son and that it was in the child’s best interests to be permanently placed in the custody of his maternal grandmother. The father appealed the Family court ruling, arguing that he was justified in abandoning the DCYF case plan, and that he was a fit father. The Supreme Court found that the findings of the lower court were valid, ruling that the father’s objections, while valid, were not sufficient to overcome the judgment of the family court. As a result of the appellate opinion, the father’s parental rights are permanently terminated.

When parents split up, custody and care of the children becomes an extremely important issue to resolve. Although some couples agree on custody, visitation, and support conditions for their co-parenting arrangement, court orders memorializing an enforceable agreement are usually necessary to ensure each party is held accountable to uphold their part of an agreement. Stipulated custody agreements that are reduced to an enforceable court order may later be modified by a separate petition or motion, which may bring parties back into court after a custody case appears to be resolved. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently affirmed a state family court ruling that denied a mother’s request to relocate to Florida with the parties’ child.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff in the recently decided case is the father of a child that he shares with the defendant. The parties were never married, but after they broke up, the plaintiff sought court orders to allow him visitation and partial custody of his child. After a trial, the plaintiff was granted partial custody and visitation with the child. After the entry of the custody orders, the defendant has since filed a motion with the court asking her to be allowed to relocate to Florida with the child. Rhode Island law requires that relocation by one parent against the wishes of the other parent can only be permitted if a court determines that the relocation would be in the best interest of the child.

The defendant argued that relocating was in the best interest of the child because she was struggling to raise her children as a single mother (she had another child from a previous relationship), and her mother would be available to help in Florida. Additionally, she had been offered a job in Florida. The family court evaluated the parties’ arguments and denied the mother’s motion. Specifically, the family court judge found that the mother failed to demonstrate how the relocation would be in the child’s best interest.

Custody-related agreements and changes can be a tricky legal landscape to navigate, especially when the parties disagree and children are involved. For example, if one parent wants to alter the terms of the couple’s custody agreement by moving to a new state with their child, the alteration of the couple’s agreement could be subject to determinations by a Rhode Island family court. When a family court evaluates such requests, they typically have to decide what is in the best interest of the child so that everyone involved has their needs met.

In a recent state Supreme Court decision, the court affirmed a family court order denying a mother’s motion to relocate with the parties’ child. In the case at hand, the parties shared joint custody of their child, with physical placement with the mother. The mother filed a motion to relocate with her child from Rhode Island to New Jersey, stating reasons associated with her employment and overall welfare and happiness. The father filed an objection to the mother’s motion and emphasized the need for shared parenting and the fact that the parties’ families were both located in Rhode Island. After hearing testimony from both parties, the trial justice denied the mother’s request to relocate and held that it would not be in the child’s best interest to relocate as the mother requested.

On appeal, the mother argued that the trial justice erred in denying her motion because they overlooked and misconceived evidence. The Supreme Court, however, ultimately affirmed the family court’s order denying the mother’s motion to relocate with the parties’ child. Although the mother cited an increase in financial circumstances due to new employment in New Jersey as a reason for relocating, this was undermined by the fact that the mother already makes an amount equal to what she would have made at her new job after relocating. The presence of the child’s maternal and paternal relatives in Rhode Island also played a role in affirming the Court’s decision.