Rhode Island Child Custody, Visitation and Grandparents’ Rights: Important Supreme Court Decisions and Legal Developments in 2026

October 24, 2026
By Ryanna T. Capalbo, Esq.
Partner, Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC

Child custody, visitation, and grandparents’ rights are among the most consequential issues addressed by the Rhode Island Family Court. Disputes concerning where a child will live, how parents will share decision-making responsibilities, whether a parent may relocate with a child, or whether grandparents may maintain contact with their grandchildren can profoundly affect family relationships.

Although Rhode Island’s principal custody and visitation statutes have remained largely unchanged in recent years, several Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions have provided important guidance concerning the application of those laws.

In particular, the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Conway v. Orenberg, 349 A.3d 250 (R.I. 2026), reaffirmed the importance of adequate factual findings in contested custody and placement proceedings.

Other decisions, including Mendez v. Arancibia, 336 A.3d 60 (R.I. 2025), and Vries v. Gaudiana, 318 A.3d 1035 (R.I. 2024), provide significant guidance concerning parental relocation, grandparents’ rights, and the constitutional protections afforded to parental decision-making.

For parents, grandparents, and other individuals involved in family disputes, understanding these decisions is important when evaluating the available legal remedies and preparing for proceedings before the Rhode Island Family Court.

At Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC, our family law practice represents clients in contested custody, visitation, parenting time, relocation, and related Family Court proceedings throughout Rhode Island.

This article examines the governing legal standards, the relevant statutory provisions, and recent Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions affecting custody and visitation matters as of October 24, 2026.

Rhode Island Child Custody Law: The Best Interests of the Child

The fundamental principle governing child custody disputes in Rhode Island is that custody and placement determinations must serve the best interests of the child.

In Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1990), the Rhode Island Supreme Court established the factors courts consider when determining a child’s best interests.

These factors include:

1. The wishes of the child’s parents regarding custody.
2. The reasonable preference of the child, if the child possesses sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.
3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with parents, siblings, and other individuals who may significantly affect the child’s best interests.
4. The child’s adjustment to home, school, and community.
5. The mental and physical health of the individuals involved.
6. The stability of the child’s home environment.
7. The moral fitness of the child’s parents.
8. The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate a close and continuous parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent.

The Family Court must consider the relevant evidence and evaluate these factors according to the circumstances of the particular case.

No single factor automatically determines the outcome.

A child’s existing living arrangements, relationships with each parent, educational needs, stability, and other circumstances may all be important.

The best-interests framework established in Pettinato remains controlling Rhode Island law and was reaffirmed by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in 2026.

Learn more about our Rhode Island Child Custody and Visitation Practice.

Conway v. Orenberg: Rhode Island Supreme Court Requires Adequate Custody Findings

One of the most significant recent Rhode Island custody decisions is Conway v. Orenberg, 349 A.3d 250 (R.I. 2026), decided January 28, 2026.

In Conway, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed a Family Court determination concerning primary physical placement.

The Supreme Court vacated the challenged placement order because the Family Court had not made sufficient factual findings concerning the child’s best interests to permit meaningful appellate review.

The decision reaffirmed that the best interests of the child remain the controlling consideration in custody and placement proceedings.

Although a trial justice need not mechanically recite every Pettinato factor, the Family Court must make findings that sufficiently explain the factual basis for its determination.

A custody or placement decision cannot rest solely upon a conclusory recommendation without the court undertaking the necessary analysis.

The case is particularly important where a guardian ad litem has submitted recommendations concerning custody or placement.

A guardian ad litem’s recommendations may be relevant evidence, but they do not eliminate the Family Court’s independent obligation to evaluate the evidence and make findings supporting its decision.

For parents involved in contested custody proceedings, Conway emphasizes the importance of presenting evidence concerning the child’s circumstances and ensuring that the record supports the requested custody arrangement.

Conway Also Addressed Child Support

The Supreme Court also addressed a child support issue involving a guideline worksheet signed by counsel.

The Court affirmed the binding effect of the attorney-signed child support arrangement in the circumstances presented, notwithstanding the client’s subsequent objection, while recognizing the availability of appropriate modification proceedings.

The decision illustrates that agreements and representations made through counsel in Family Court proceedings can have significant legal consequences.

Parents should therefore carefully review proposed custody, placement, and support agreements before authorizing their submission to the court.

Joint Legal Custody and Disagreements Between Parents

Rhode Island law distinguishes between legal custody and physical placement.

Legal custody concerns the authority to make major decisions affecting a child’s upbringing, education, medical care, and welfare.

Physical placement concerns where the child resides and how parenting time is allocated.

Parents may share joint legal custody even when one parent has primary physical placement.

Joint legal custody does not necessarily mean that the child must spend equal time in each parent’s household.

Disagreements can arise when parents sharing joint legal custody cannot agree upon important decisions concerning their child.

In Nagel v. Nagel, 292 A.3d 1198 (R.I. 2023), the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed a disagreement involving a child’s vaccination.

The Court distinguished the resolution of a particular parental decision-making impasse from a modification of the underlying custody arrangement.

The decision demonstrates that a Family Court may resolve a specific dispute between joint custodial parents according to the child’s best interests without necessarily modifying the existing custody order.

These disputes require consideration of the applicable court order, the decision at issue, and the evidence concerning the child’s welfare.

Rhode Island Parental Relocation: Dupre v. Dupre Remains Controlling

Relocation disputes arise when a parent seeks to move with a child to another state or country and the proposed move may affect the child’s relationship with the other parent.

In Dupre v. Dupre, 857 A.2d 242 (R.I. 2004), the Rhode Island Supreme Court established the framework governing parental relocation disputes.

The Court rejected a requirement that a relocating parent demonstrate a compelling reason for the proposed move.

Instead, relocation determinations must be evaluated under the child’s best interests, considering the factors relevant to the proposed relocation.

Those considerations include:

1. The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with each parent.
2. The reasonable likelihood that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for the child and relocating parent.
3. The probable impact of relocation upon the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development.
4. The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the child and the nonrelocating parent through suitable parenting time arrangements.
5. The existence of extended family and other support systems in the current and proposed locations.
6. Each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing relocation.
7. Other circumstances relevant to the child’s best interests, including international legal considerations when applicable.

The Dupre factors are considered together with the Pettinato best-interests framework.

No single consideration necessarily controls the outcome.

Dawson v. Ojeda and Mendez v. Arancibia

The Rhode Island Supreme Court has continued to apply the Dupre framework in subsequent relocation cases.

In Dawson v. Ojeda, 303 A.3d 569 (R.I. 2023), the Court addressed a proposed relocation to Massachusetts and affirmed the Family Court’s determination.

More recently, in Mendez v. Arancibia, 336 A.3d 60 (R.I. 2025), decided June 23, 2025, the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed a custody and relocation determination involving an international move to Bolivia.

The Court upheld the Family Court’s award of sole custody and primary physical placement after considering the relevant evidence and applicable best-interests and relocation factors.

These decisions illustrate the fact-intensive nature of relocation disputes.

A parent seeking relocation should be prepared to present evidence concerning the child’s circumstances, the proposed living arrangements, educational opportunities, family support, and the feasibility of maintaining the child’s relationship with the nonrelocating parent.

Likewise, a parent opposing relocation should be prepared to address the applicable factors and the potential consequences of the proposed move.

As of October 2026, Dupre remains the governing Rhode Island relocation framework.

Grandparents’ Rights in Rhode Island: Visitation Is Not Automatic

Grandparents often maintain important relationships with their grandchildren.

Some provide regular childcare, transportation, financial assistance, and emotional support.

When family relationships deteriorate, however, a grandparent may be denied contact with a grandchild.

Rhode Island law recognizes certain circumstances in which grandparents may seek court-ordered visitation, but those rights are limited by statutory requirements and the constitutional rights of parents.

The principal statutory provision governing grandparent visitation is R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3.

The statute was last amended in 2017 and has not been amended during the 2023 through 2026 legislative sessions.

Under § 15-5-24.3, a grandparent may file a miscellaneous petition seeking reasonable visitation with a grandchild.

However, the Family Court must make specific written findings before granting relief.

The Five Statutory Requirements for Grandparent Visitation

Under § 15-5-24.3(a)(2), the Family Court must find:

1. Visitation is in the grandchild’s best interests, considering the nature of the relationship, prior contact, potential benefits and detriments, the effect on the parent-child relationship, the preference of a sufficiently mature grandchild, and the parents’ reasons for opposing visitation.
2. The grandparent is a fit and proper person to exercise visitation rights.
3. The grandparent repeatedly attempted to visit the grandchild during the thirty days immediately preceding the filing of the petition and was denied visitation as a direct result of the actions of one or both parents.
4. There is no other way for the grandparent to visit the grandchild without court intervention.
5. The grandparent has rebutted, by clear and convincing evidence, the presumption that the parent’s decision to refuse visitation was reasonable.

All five requirements must be addressed.

A close relationship with a grandchild does not, standing alone, establish a legal entitlement to visitation.

Similarly, a grandparent’s belief that continued contact would benefit the child is insufficient unless the applicable statutory requirements are satisfied.

The Importance of the Thirty-Day Requirement

One frequently overlooked aspect of Rhode Island’s grandparent visitation statute is the requirement that the grandparent repeatedly attempt to visit during the thirty days immediately preceding the filing of the petition.

The statute requires evidence of repeated attempts and refusals attributable to parental action during that specific period.

Grandparents considering litigation should preserve records of attempted visits, including emails, text messages, correspondence, and other communications.

A general allegation that contact has been denied for several months or years does not necessarily establish compliance with the statutory requirement.

Potential Attorney’s Fees

Section 15-5-24.3 also authorizes the Family Court to assess the parents’ reasonable attorney’s fees against a grandparent if the petition is denied.

This potential consequence makes careful evaluation of the statutory requirements particularly important before commencing litigation.

Learn more about our Rhode Island Grandparents’ Rights Practice and the requirements for seeking court-ordered visitation.

Vries v. Gaudiana: Rhode Island Supreme Court Reaffirms Parental Rights

In Vries v. Gaudiana, 318 A.3d 1035 (R.I. 2024), decided August 1, 2024, the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed claims concerning third-party visitation and asserted de facto family relationships.

The petitioner sought recognition of relationships described as an unrelated caregiver, de facto relative, or de facto grandparent.

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner’s claims.

The decision reaffirmed the constitutional presumption recognized in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000), that fit parents ordinarily act in the best interests of their children.

A party seeking visitation over the objection of a fit custodial parent must overcome the presumption favoring that parent’s decision.

In addressing grandparent visitation, the Supreme Court explained that a petitioner must establish parental unfitness or demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the refusal of visitation was unreasonable.

Allegations that visitation would benefit the child, without addressing parental fitness or the reasonableness of the refusal, are insufficient to overcome that threshold.

Nonparent Standing and De Facto Grandparent Claims

The Supreme Court also addressed whether a person who lacked legally recognized parental or grandparent status could obtain visitation based upon an asserted de facto relationship.

The Court reaffirmed that visitation rights for persons other than parents must have a recognized statutory basis.

The petitioner had not established statutory authority permitting visitation merely because he asserted that he had functioned as an unrelated caregiver or de facto family member.

The Court also addressed the effect of Rhode Island’s Uniform Parentage Act upon common-law claims of de facto parentage.

Importantly, Vries did not categorically recognize or reject every proposed common-law theory of de facto grandparentage or in loco grandparentis.

Rather, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s particular claims could not proceed because of deficiencies involving standing and the constitutional presumption favoring parental decision-making.

The decision is important both for grandparents seeking visitation and for parents defending their decisions concerning third-party contact.

For grandparents, it underscores the importance of identifying a valid statutory basis for relief.

For parents, it reaffirms the substantial constitutional protection afforded to decisions made by fit parents concerning their children’s upbringing.

As of October 2026, the visitation and parental-presumption principles addressed in Vries remain undisturbed by subsequent Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions.

Other Rhode Island Statutes Governing Grandparent and Sibling Visitation

Rhode Island law contains several related statutory provisions addressing visitation under particular circumstances.

Grandparent Visitation Following the Death of a Parent

R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.1 addresses grandparent visitation where the grandparent’s adult child, who is the parent of the grandchild, has died.

The death of a parent does not automatically establish an unrestricted right of visitation.

The availability of relief depends upon the applicable statutory requirements and the circumstances of the case.

Grandparent Visitation in Divorce Proceedings

R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.2 addresses grandparent visitation in connection with divorce proceedings.

Grandparents seeking visitation in these circumstances must satisfy the applicable statutory requirements rather than relying solely upon their familial relationship.

Sibling Visitation Rights

R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 15-5-24.3(b) and 15-5-24.4 address sibling visitation rights under specified circumstances.

These provisions recognize that sibling relationships may be affected by changes in custody, family separation, or other circumstances.

However, court-ordered visitation remains subject to the applicable statutory standards and the constitutional protections afforded to parents.

Restrictions Following Certain Criminal Convictions

R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.5 addresses visitation restrictions involving a parent convicted of first-degree murder of the child’s other parent, subject to the statute’s specified procedures and exceptions.

This provision should not be confused with the general grandparent visitation requirements.

Rhode Island Custody and Visitation Statutes Remain Unchanged in 2026

Although recent Supreme Court decisions have clarified the application of Rhode Island custody and visitation law, the principal statutory provisions have not undergone corresponding legislative changes.

R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-16, which addresses alimony, custody, and related matters, was last amended in 2013.

The custody and visitation provisions contained in subsections (d) through (h) remained unchanged through the 2026 legislative session.

Likewise, the principal grandparent and sibling visitation statutes remained unchanged during 2023 through 2026.

The following provisions remain in force:

• R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.1 — Grandparent visitation following the death of the grandparent’s child.
• R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.2 — Grandparent visitation in divorce proceedings.
• R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3 — Grandparent and sibling visitation.
• R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.4 — Sibling visitation rights.
• R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.5 — Restrictions on court-ordered visitation involving a parent convicted of first-degree murder of the child’s other parent.

It is important to distinguish these provisions from R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24, which governs support and wage assignment procedures and is not a grandparent or sibling visitation statute.

The absence of recent legislative amendments does not mean Rhode Island custody and visitation law has remained static. The Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decisions continue to clarify how the existing statutes and constitutional principles must be applied.

Additional Rhode Island Supreme Court Custody Decisions in 2026

In addition to Conway v. Orenberg, the Rhode Island Supreme Court issued other decisions addressing custody, visitation, and the jurisdiction of the Family Court.

Fitzgerald v. Jackson, 357 A.3d 668 (R.I. 2026)

In Fitzgerald v. Jackson, the Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed issues arising from custody and visitation proceedings, including a challenge concerning judicial recusal.

The Supreme Court affirmed the challenged determination.

The decision illustrates that appellate review of Family Court proceedings may involve not only the substantive custody determination but also procedural questions concerning the conduct of the proceedings and the applicable standards for judicial recusal.

For parents involved in contested custody litigation, the decision reinforces the importance of developing an adequate record and properly preserving issues for appellate review.

In re DDH, 352 A.3d 1203 (R.I. 2026)

In In re DDH, the Rhode Island Supreme Court addressed the Family Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction over a custody petition after the child had reached eighteen years of age.

The Court affirmed the dismissal of the custody petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The decision illustrates that the Family Court’s authority to adjudicate custody matters is subject to jurisdictional limitations.

A court cannot exercise jurisdiction merely because the parties wish to continue litigating a custody dispute after the statutory basis for that jurisdiction has ceased to exist.

The case also demonstrates the importance of considering jurisdictional requirements before initiating or continuing custody proceedings.

What These Decisions Mean for Rhode Island Parents

The recent Rhode Island Supreme Court decisions reinforce several important principles governing custody and visitation litigation.

First, the best interests of the child remain the controlling consideration in custody and physical placement disputes.

Second, Family Court custody determinations must be supported by adequate factual findings. As demonstrated by Conway v. Orenberg, a custody order may be vulnerable to appellate review when the trial justice fails to sufficiently explain the factual basis for the determination.

Third, parental relocation disputes continue to be governed by the framework established in Dupre v. Dupre. Parents seeking or opposing relocation must address the relevant factors through evidence concerning the child’s circumstances and the proposed arrangements.

Fourth, parents who share joint legal custody may require judicial resolution of particular disagreements concerning major decisions affecting their children. Such disputes do not necessarily require modification of the underlying custody order.

Finally, custody and visitation proceedings require careful attention to the Family Court’s jurisdiction, the applicable statutory provisions, and the procedural requirements governing the relief requested.

These considerations make preparation and legal analysis particularly important in contested custody proceedings.

What These Decisions Mean for Rhode Island Grandparents

For grandparents seeking visitation, Rhode Island law provides a potential statutory remedy, but the requirements are demanding.

A grandparent considering a petition under R.I. Gen. Laws § 15-5-24.3 must establish each statutory prerequisite, including the required attempts to visit during the thirty days immediately preceding the petition.

The grandparent must also present evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption that the parent’s decision refusing visitation was reasonable.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vries v. Gaudiana confirms that the constitutional rights of fit parents remain central to the analysis.

A grandparent’s desire to maintain a relationship with a child, even when supported by a substantial history of involvement, does not automatically establish a right to court-ordered visitation.

Likewise, individuals who claim to have functioned as grandparents or other family members must identify a legally recognized basis for seeking relief.

For parents opposing grandparent visitation, the law provides substantial protections, but the particular circumstances and evidence remain important.

Grandparent visitation petitions should therefore be carefully evaluated before litigation begins.

Representation in Rhode Island Child Custody, Visitation and Grandparents’ Rights Matters

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC represents clients in Rhode Island family law proceedings involving child custody, physical placement, parenting time, parental relocation, modification of custody orders, enforcement of visitation arrangements, and disputes concerning grandparent visitation.

Our family law practice is led by Partner Ryanna T. Capalbo, Esq.

We represent parents seeking initial custody determinations, parents responding to proposed changes in custody or placement, and individuals involved in disputes concerning the enforcement of existing Family Court orders.

Our attorneys also assist grandparents evaluating whether they have a statutory basis to seek visitation and parents defending their decisions concerning contact between their children and other family members.

Custody and visitation matters frequently involve difficult factual disputes, competing accounts of family circumstances, and questions concerning the application of Rhode Island statutes and Supreme Court decisions.

Our approach emphasizes preparation, careful examination of the evidence, and consideration of the legal standards governing the particular proceeding.

When appropriate, we work toward negotiated parenting agreements and other resolutions that address the child’s circumstances and the parties’ legal obligations.

When agreement cannot be reached, we represent clients in contested proceedings before the Rhode Island Family Court.

Learn more about our Rhode Island Child Custody and Visitation Practice, Family Law Practice, and Divorce Representation.

Speak With a Rhode Island Child Custody and Visitation Attorney

If you are involved in a child custody dispute, considering relocation with your child, seeking to modify an existing custody order, or evaluating your rights concerning grandparent visitation, Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC can assist you in understanding the applicable Rhode Island law.

The legal standards governing these matters are established, but their application depends upon the particular circumstances, the evidence presented, and the findings made by the Family Court.

Our attorneys represent clients throughout Rhode Island, including Providence, Warwick, Cranston, East Greenwich, Coventry, West Warwick, North Kingstown, South Kingstown, Newport, Westerly, and surrounding communities.

To discuss your circumstances and arrange a consultation, call 401-300-4055 or contact Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC online.

Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC
1350 Division Road, Suite 102
West Warwick, Rhode Island 02893
Telephone: 401-300-4055

Ryanna T. Capalbo, Esq., is a Partner at Bilodeau Capalbo, LLC and leads the firm’s Family Law and Divorce practice.

This article discusses Rhode Island law as of October 24, 2026, and is provided for general informational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, and reading it does not establish an attorney-client relationship.