Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

The parties in this case, who were never married but cohabitated and share two minor children, separated in early 2023 after their relationship deteriorated. The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Kent County Family Court seeking joint custody, primary placement of the children, and child support. Shortly after, the defendant filed a separate complaint alleging abuse, resulting in an ex parte temporary protection order and temporary custody for her. Over the following year, the Family Court issued various orders, including appointing a guardian ad litem, scheduling mediation, amending visitation, and addressing discovery issues related to the plaintiff’s income.After several hearings, the Family Court entered four orders on June 25, 2024. These included a visitation order (not challenged on appeal), an order granting primary placement of the children to the defendant, a child-support guideline worksheet setting the plaintiff’s monthly obligation at $1,254, and a handwritten order memorializing child-support details and other arrangements. The plaintiff objected, contending that there was no agreement or sufficient opportunity to present evidence, and that the best interests of the children were not properly considered.The Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed the case. It found that the Family Court did not make adequate factual findings regarding the children’s best interests to support the order granting primary placement to the defendant, as required by established precedent. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the disputed portion of the placement order. However, the Court affirmed the child-support guideline worksheet, determining that the plaintiff was bound by his attorney’s actions in signing the worksheet and that no special circumstances warranted overturning it. As the same support amount was memorialized in the handwritten order, the plaintiff’s appeal of that order was deemed moot. The case was remanded to the Family Court for further proceedings. View "Conway v. Orenberg" on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a domestic-abuse complaint in Rhode Island District Court, alleging that the defendant forced her to engage in sexual relations by force or duress. An ex parte temporary protective order was issued, prohibiting contact and requiring the defendant to surrender firearms. Following a hearing, the District Court granted a final order of protection for three years, continuing the firearm restrictions under relevant Rhode Island statutes.The defendant appealed to the Kent County Superior Court, which held a de novo bench trial. At trial, the judge stated he would apply a clear and convincing evidence standard, rather than the preponderance of the evidence standard typically used in civil cases, due to the temporary deprivation of the defendant’s firearm rights. The judge concluded that the plaintiff did not meet this higher burden of proof, found the defendant’s evidence more credible, and dismissed the complaint, dissolving the protective order. The plaintiff then appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo, focusing solely on the appropriate burden of proof for civil protective orders involving temporary restrictions of firearm rights. The Court held that the preponderance of the evidence is the correct standard in such proceedings, notwithstanding the Second Amendment implications or statutory provisions regarding firearm surrender. The Court found no legislative intent to require a higher standard, and emphasized that temporary restrictions do not amount to a significant deprivation of liberty requiring heightened proof. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded for a new hearing under the preponderance of the evidence standard. View "Andrew v. Adorno" on Justia Law

Sharon and Kieran Cunningham were married in 1994 and divorced in 2021. They entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that was incorporated but not merged into the final divorce decree. The MSA included provisions about the use and sale of their home in Middletown, Rhode Island, which were modified twice by mutual agreement. In January 2024, Kieran's counsel offered to purchase the home, leading to a dispute over whether the Family Court could modify the MSA to allow an appraisal of the property.Kieran filed a motion in the Family Court to have the home appraised, which Sharon opposed, arguing that the MSA did not provide for such an appraisal. Kieran amended his motion to request an inspection and appraisal, citing Rule 34 of the Family Court Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure. The Family Court held a hearing and ultimately ruled that Kieran had no right to purchase the property under the MSA and sanctioned him for filing an improper motion, awarding Sharon $6,125 in attorneys' fees.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decision. The Court held that Kieran's motion was not well-grounded in fact or law and that he sought relief not permitted by the MSA. The Court found that the Family Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees, as the fees were reasonable and supported by an affidavit from a Rhode Island Bar member. The Supreme Court concluded that the sanctions and attorneys' fees were appropriate given the circumstances. View "Cunningham v. Cunningham" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Robert and Etleva Stratoberdha, filed a lawsuit in Superior Court against Clements Properties, LLC, Robert P. Rucando, and officials from the Town of Portsmouth. They alleged that Clements Properties caused continuous trespass by creating an illegal drainage structure, Rucando failed to disclose flooding issues when selling the property, and the Town neglected to enforce ordinances. During the prolonged litigation, Etleva filed for divorce, and the Family Court issued orders related to the sale of the marital home and the settlement of the Superior Court action.The Family Court appointed a Commissioner to sell the marital home and authorized her to settle the Superior Court action. Robert did not appeal these orders. The Family Court later approved a settlement agreement where Clements Properties would buy the marital home for $870,000, and the Town would pay $75,000 in damages. The Family Court's orders and the settlement agreement were incorporated into the interlocutory decision pending entry of final judgment in the divorce case. Robert's appeal of this decision was dismissed as untimely.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's order approving the settlement agreement. The Court held that the Family Court's orders were final and could not be challenged in the Superior Court. The Superior Court's approval of the settlement agreement was a ministerial act based on the Family Court's final decrees. The Court found no merit in Robert's arguments and concluded that the Superior Court properly relied on the Family Court's orders. View "Stratoberdhav. Clements Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves the termination of parental rights of K.M. and E.R., Sr. to their four eldest children, J.R., E.R., A.R., and D.R. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) became involved after the fourth child tested positive for cocaine at birth in March 2016. All four children were removed from the home and never returned. The parents were referred to various programs and services, but they showed minimal progress and compliance, leading to the filing of termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions in August 2017. Despite some progress in later years, including reunification with their two youngest children through the Safe and Secure Baby Court (SSBC), the parents never progressed to unsupervised or overnight visits with the four eldest children.The Family Court terminated the parental rights of K.M. and E.R., Sr. after a trial that spanned several weeks and included testimony from multiple witnesses. The trial justice found that the parents were unfit, that DCYF had made reasonable efforts to reunify the family, and that termination was in the best interests of the children. The parents appealed, arguing that the trial justice erred in these findings and in admitting the guardian ad litem (GAL) report.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decrees. The Court found that the trial justice's findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence, including the parents' lack of compliance with service plans and the children's need for a permanent home. The Court also held that the admission of the GAL report, although hearsay, was harmless error given the overall evidence supporting the termination. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the children's best interests and the significant progress the parents had made, but ultimately upheld the termination of parental rights. View "In re J.R.; In re E.R.; In re A.R.; In re D.R" on Justia Law

Matthew O. appealed the Family Court's decision to terminate his parental rights to his two sons, N.O. and K.O. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) initially became involved with the family due to the mother's drug use. N.O. was placed in foster care, and K.O., born later, was also placed in the same foster home due to his developmental disability. Matthew worked towards reunification but faced challenges, including his mental health issues and cognitive limitations.The Family Court initially denied DCYF's first petition to terminate Matthew's parental rights, finding that DCYF had not made reasonable efforts to reunify him with his children. However, DCYF filed a second petition, and after a trial, the Family Court granted the petition, concluding that Matthew was unfit to parent due to his cognitive limitations and poor judgment, and that DCYF had made reasonable efforts to provide him with services aimed at reunification.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decision. The Supreme Court found that DCYF had made reasonable efforts to reunify Matthew with his children by providing tailored services and support. Despite these efforts, Matthew was unable to make sufficient progress in improving his parenting abilities. The Court also noted that Matthew's refusal to consistently engage in mental health treatment was a significant barrier to reunification. The Supreme Court concluded that it was in the best interest of the children to terminate Matthew's parental rights, as they were thriving in their foster home and needed permanency. View "In re N.O." on Justia Law

Marilyn Wilson and Milton Wilson were married in 1980, and Milton was employed as a police officer. They divorced in 1998, and their property settlement agreement stated that Marilyn would be the irrevocable beneficiary of Milton's survivor pension benefits. Milton later married Diane Wilson in 2007 and passed away in 2020. After his death, Marilyn sought survivor benefits from the City of Providence, which were being paid to Diane.The Family Court declined to rule on Marilyn's motion to compel the city to pay her the benefits, leading her to file a suit in the Superior Court. The Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Diane, ruling that she was the surviving spouse entitled to the benefits under Rhode Island General Laws § 45-21.3-1 and the Providence Code § 17-189(m)(6).The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. The Court held that the terms "surviving spouse" and "dependent spouse" in the statute and ordinance refer to the person lawfully married to the retiree at the time of death. The Court found that the property settlement agreement between Marilyn and Milton, which was incorporated but not merged into the final divorce judgment, could not override the statutory provisions. Therefore, Diane, as Milton's spouse at the time of his death, was entitled to the survivor benefits. View "Wilson v. The City of Providence" on Justia Law

The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) filed petitions to terminate the parental rights of a father to his three sons, B.M., A.M., and N.M., based on allegations of unfitness. The petitions cited that the children had been in DCYF care for over twelve months without a substantial probability of returning to the father within a reasonable period. The father had moved out of state, inconsistently engaged in required services, and failed to maintain regular visitation with his children. The children were placed in a foster home where they thrived and expressed a desire not to return to their father.The Family Court held a bench trial over several days, admitting various exhibits and hearing testimonies from DCYF caseworkers, therapists, and the father. The court found by clear and convincing evidence that the father was unfit due to his failure to complete required services, inconsistent visitation, and inability to provide a stable environment. The court also found that the children were well-adjusted and bonded with their foster mother, and it was in their best interests to terminate the father's parental rights.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's decree. The Supreme Court found that there was competent evidence supporting the Family Court's findings of unfitness, DCYF's reasonable efforts to reunify the family, and that termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court noted that the father’s inconsistent engagement with services and visitation, along with the children’s expressed wishes and well-being in their foster home, justified the termination of his parental rights. View "In re B.M." on Justia Law

The case involves the divorce of Jose A. Saldana and Daisy M. DeJesus, who married in 2004 and separated in 2009. During their marriage, Saldana purchased a home on Whitmarsh Street, which was later transferred to include DeJesus on the title. After their separation, DeJesus moved to Pennsylvania and later returned to Rhode Island, purchasing another property on Atwells Avenue with her mother. DeJesus filed for divorce in 2018, and the Family Court awarded her the Whitmarsh property, while Saldana retained his pension.The Family Court granted the divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences and divided the couple's assets accordingly. Saldana did not appeal the final judgment. Later, DeJesus filed a motion to hold Saldana in contempt for not cooperating with refinancing the Whitmarsh property. Saldana filed a motion to vacate the final judgment, arguing that it did not reflect their agreement and that DeJesus had not disclosed all her assets. The Family Court magistrate denied this motion, and Saldana did not appeal.Saldana then filed a second motion to vacate, which was partially granted regarding the Atwells property but denied concerning the Whitmarsh property. The Family Court justice upheld the magistrate's decision, and Saldana appealed to the Rhode Island Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court's order, noting that Saldana's second motion to vacate was untimely and should have been dismissed. The issue of the Atwells property remains pending for further proceedings. View "DeJesus v. Saldana" on Justia Law

The case involves a petitioner who filed a miscellaneous petition in Family Court concerning a child whose parents are the respondent and the late Christine Hasselbrock. The petitioner, who had a long-standing platonic relationship with Ms. Hasselbrock, provided financial and emotional support to her and her child. After Ms. Hasselbrock's death, the petitioner sought to be declared a de facto parent or to have other parental rights recognized, but the respondent denied him access to the child.Initially, the petitioner filed an amended verified petition in Family Court, asserting both statutory and common law claims for de facto parentage. The first hearing justice dismissed the statutory claim due to lack of standing, as the petitioner had never resided with the child. The justice indicated that the petitioner could pursue his common law claims on the miscellaneous calendar. Consequently, the petitioner filed a new miscellaneous petition asserting various common law claims, including de facto parentage, in loco parentis, and visitation rights.The Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Family Court's orders. The Court held that the Rhode Island Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) supersedes common law de facto parentage claims, as the statute explicitly outlines the criteria for establishing de facto parentage. The Court also found that the petitioner lacked standing to pursue claims for visitation based on being an "unrelated caregiver" or "de facto relative," as there is no statutory authority granting such rights. Additionally, the Court affirmed the denial of the respondent's motion for attorneys' fees, finding no basis for such an award. View "De Vries v. Gaudiana" on Justia Law