Articles Posted in Family Law

Published on:

The work of administrative child protection agencies (colloquially called “Child Protective Services” but known as the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth, and Families in this state) can be some of the most difficult and emotionally taxing legal work imaginable. The DCYF is tasked with the difficult job of determining when a natural parent should lose their parental rights. The DCFY has additional responsibilities besides advocating for the termination of a parent’s rights. The DCYF takes a primary role in ensuring the safety of at-risk children while the process is ongoing, as well as finding a permanent placement for the adoption of the children after parental rights have been terminated.

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.

Published on:

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.

Published on:

Many states including Rhode Island have allowed for the development and civil recognition of various forms of relationships between residents for purposes of asset and debt division, medical care decision making and information access, insurance coverage, as well as for tax and other purposes. In addition to standard marriages, the state of Rhode Island also recognizes domestic partnerships, as well as some forms of what is known as “common law marriage”

Couples and families who are living their lives together have many reasons for wanting their relationship to be recognized by the state. A married couple enjoys automatic rights that can be more difficult for unmarried partners to enjoy. Married couples are able to purchase health insurance for their spouses through their employers. Additionally, spouses are entitled to certain disability, pension, and other benefits earned by their spouse. Until the legalization of same-sex marriage nationally in 2015, same-sex couples in Rhode Island were unable to get legally married and were forced to rely on a domestic partnership application. Although marriage is now permitted for same-sex couples, domestic partnerships remain an option for same-sex or intersex couples who desire the benefits of a legally recognized relationship without getting married.

In 2001 the State of Rhode Island changed the law to make domestic partnership benefits available to state employees, by treating domestic partners as a dependent under state law. Under this law, domestic partners are able to share employer-run health insurance benefits, as well as retirement and other benefits. To qualify for such a domestic partnership, the employee partner must submit an affidavit to their employer stating that they are unmarried adult partners who have lived together for at least a year and have interdependent finances, as demonstrated by submitting evidence of shared finances. Although private and municipal employers are not required to recognize domestic partnerships in the same manner as the state, many choose to do so.

Published on:

Many child and family psychologists have determined over the years that it is best for a child to have a meaningful and healthy relationship with both their parents. In the event of a divorce or break-up, it can be difficult for children to have such meaningful and healthy relationships with both their parents, especially when the legal system for determining custody is designed in such an adversarial manner, putting one parent against the other with the children often stuck in the middle. A recently published article discusses one man’s experience in fighting for 50-50 custody of his daughters, and his lobbying efforts to change state laws that discourage true shared custody.

According to the discussion in the local report, Rhode Island is one of the two worst states for obtaining a true shared child custody order. Although many experts agree that the best interests of children are served by effective joint custody arrangements, the family court system in Rhode Island is designed to choose one parent over the other as the “primary custodian,” while the other parent falls into more of a secondary role. The courts’ tendencies to favor primary/secondary custody arrangements may be the result of outdated gender roles that have assumed women would act as “stay-at-home moms” while their ex-partner would work and support the child by making child support payments. In today’s society, this belief is outdated. Many fathers want to take an equal role in parenting responsibilities, while many mothers work full time. As a result of these changes, the state laws should be updated to favor shared custody arrangements.

Although the state laws to determine custody in Rhode Island tend to support a primary/secondary custody arrangement, shared or 50/50 custody is available and commonly ordered by the courts. Family courts in Rhode Island see the “best interests of the child(ren)” as a primary factor in determining a final custody order. A skilled Rhode Island family law attorney should be able to make a case to the court that a shared or 50/50 custody order would be in the best interests of the children. Although Rhode Island is not the easiest place to seek out joint custody in the event of a divorce or custody dispute, parents with competent legal representation can ensure that the final order is consistent with the best interests of their children.

Published on:

Recently, the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued a decision affirming the decree of a family court terminating a mother’s parental rights to her four children. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCFY) became involved with the family after the mother was hospitalized for mental health issues. DCFY filed a neglect petition to remove four of the woman’s children, and three were placed with their maternal grandmother, and the youngest was placed with a foster family. DCFY contends that the mother failed to fully engage in counseling and other steps to address her mental health. Further, the mother’s engagement with the children declined over several months. DCFY noted that their initial goal was reunification with the mother; however, the goal changed to termination of parental rights and adoption as time progressed.

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
Published on:

Divorce and parentage settlements and orders in Rhode Island often contain provisions for the parents to split private school or other childcare expenses that are incurred by a parent while the child is under the age of 18. Divorcing parents may also agree to share expenses for children after they reach the age of majority, however, such orders may not be enforceable by the family court. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently entered a ruling in a case revolving around a father’s agreement to pay for his child’s college as part of a divorce settlement.

The plaintiff in the recently decided case was married to the defendant, and the parties had one child together. According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the parties reached a settlement for their divorce terms, including issues such as child support, payment of private school expenses, as well as custody and visitation. Several years after the parties divorced, they modified the agreement with what is called a consent order. Under the consent order, the father’s child support obligation would be reduced by approximately $400 per month, and he would agree to pay for one-half of the cost of post-high school education for the child.

After the consent order was put into place, the father reduced his child support payment as agreed. When the child entered college, however, the father refused to pay for one-half of the tuition as discussed in the consent order. The mother sued the father in family court, arguing that he was in contempt of the consent order and should be ordered to pay his share of college tuition. The family court agreed with the mother and ordered the father to pay one-half of the college costs.

Published on:

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.

Published on:

Rhode Island family courts are often placed in the difficult position of determining whether it is in the child’s best interests to place them in foster care or an adoptive home when the natural parent still desires a parent-child relationship with the child. At-risk children are usually first discovered by the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), which takes custody of the children and offers services to the parents to correct whatever situation led to the children being placed in the custody of the state. If a parent fails to correct their situation, DCYF may go to the courts and seek to terminate the parent’s parental rights. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently addressed a natural father’s appeal from a family court ruling that terminated his rights to his daughter.

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.

Published on:

In Rhode Island, family courts address many issues relating to families and children, including divorce, custody, child support, and adoption matters. Some of the most difficult and heart-wrenching issues addressed by family courts are proceedings initiated to terminate the parental rights of a natural parent. To terminate a parent’s rights, a family court must find by clear and convincing evidence that a parent is unfit to have rights over their child, and that the termination of such rights is in the best interest of the child. In a recently decided appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court discussed the requirements for termination of parental rights, and ultimately ruled that a father’s rights were properly terminated by a family court.

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.

Published on:

It is almost always only following unfortunate circumstances that the Rhode Island Department of Children Youth and Families (the DCYF) petitions the court to terminate the parental rights of a natural parent. The procedural requirements and standard of proof required to terminate parental rights are more stringent than in other civil claims, however, these petitions are frequently granted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court recently published an opinion affirming an order by a family court terminating a mother’s parental rights of her seven-year-old daughter.

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.

Contact Information