Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Husband filed a complaint for divorce, citing irreconcilable differences. Wife counterclaimed for sole custody of the parties’ two minor children, alimony, child support, and equitable distribution of the marital assets. After a trial, the trial justice dissolved the parties’ marriage, awarded the parties joint custody of their children, granted Wife physical placement of both children, ordered Husband to pay child support, and partitioned the marital assets. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the decree in regard to the issue of child support, holding that the trial justice failed to consider the child-support guidelines when determining the amount of child support; and (2) affirmed the final decree in all other respects. Remanded. View "Vieira v. Hussein-Vieira" on Justia Law

After two separate trials, the family court entered decrees finding dependency as to Respondent’s sons, King and Saint, determining that the children were actually suffering or likely to suffer physical and/or emotional harm and that it was in the children’s best interest to be placed out-of-home. Both children were committed to the care, custody, and control of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families. Respondent appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decrees of the family court, holding that the trial justice’s findings of dependency as to both King and Saint were supported by clear and convincing evidence. View "In re King J." on Justia Law

The family court issued a decision granting the State’s petition to terminate Father’s parental rights to his two daughters. The family court justice finding by clear and convincing evidence that Father was an unfit parent, that the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) had fulfilled its obligation to make reasonable efforts to reunify Father with his daughters, that Father failed to cooperate with the services offered by DCYF, and that it would be in the best interests of the children that they be adopted by their foster parents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the family court justice’s findings were supported by legal and competent evidence. View "In re Briann A.T." on Justia Law

The family court entered a decree that terminated Respondent’s parental rights. The decree rested primarily on Respondent's criminal convictions, including a conviction for first-degree murder. While Respondent’s appeal was pending, the Supreme Court vacated Respondent’s criminal convictions and corresponding sentences, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court vacated the decree terminating Respondent’s parental rights, holding that, without Respondent's criminal convictions and lengthy incarceration, the family court did not have sufficient factual support to find that Respondent was an unfit parent. Remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Izabella G." on Justia Law

Father and Mother were both dual citizens of the United States and the Republic of Ireland. The parties later divorced. In accordance with a property settlement agreement, the parties share joint custody of their three children, with Mother having physical placement. As part of the agreement, the parties stipulated that future child-custody disputes shall remain under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and that of the Rhode Island Family Court. The parties stayed with Mother in Ireland and visited Father in Rhode Island each summer. Father later filed three motions in the Rhode Island Family Court, including an ex parte emergency motion to modify custody and placement. The court granted the ex parte order. Mother moved to vacate the order and sought to dismiss the action on the grounds that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction where the children had resided in Ireland continuously for more than five years. After a hearing, The hearing justice declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that the hearing justice abused her discretion in executing both steps of the necessary two-part analysis under section 15-14.1-19 of the UCCJEA and by declining jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens. View "Hogan v. McAndrew" on Justia Law

In 2003, Robert Loppi purchased a life insurance policy from United Investors Life Insurance Co. in which he initially named Marilyn Loppi, his wife, as the beneficiary. In 2008, after Marilyn filed for divorce from Robert, Robert applied to United Investors to change the beneficiary on his life insurance policy to his uncle, David Loppi. In 2009, during the course of the divorce proceeding, the family court entered an interlocutory order ordering that Robert’s life insurance policies be cashed in and that the cash surrender value be divided equally between Robert and Marilyn. Before Robert complied with the interlocutory order, Robert died. Thereafter, United Investors declined to pay the life insurance death benefit to either David or Marilyn. David filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment that he alone was entitled to the life insurance policy death benefit. The hearing justice granted David’s petition for declaratory judgment stating that David was entitled to 100 percent of the policy proceeds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Marilyn was not entitled to any portion of the life insurance proceeds at issue. View "Loppi v. United Investors Life Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed petitions in Family Court alleging that Respondent had abused and neglected his two minor children and sought to terminate Respondent’s parental rights to both children. After consolidating the neglect and termination petitions for trial, the family court granted DCYF’s petitions and terminated Respondent’s parental rights to his two children. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial justice did not infringe Respondent’s due process rights when she rendered her decision to terminate Respondent’s parental rights immediately after she had appointed substitute counsel; and (2) the trial justice did not err by finding that DCYF had proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was unfit to parent his two minor children. View "In re Jake G." on Justia Law

After a jury-waived trial, the family court issued a decree terminating Mother’s parental rights to three of her children. Mother appealed, arguing that both R.I. Gen. Laws 15-7-7 and Supreme Court precedent with respect to the factors to be considered when addressing a petition for termination of parental rights violate her constitutional right to due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the family court terminating Mother’s parental rights as concerns her three children, holding that Mother’s contention on appeal had been waived, as Mother did not raise her constitutional argument before the family court. View "In re Shy C." on Justia Law

In 2007, the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) filed petitions to terminate Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their two sons. The Family Court terminated the parents’ parental rights, but the Supreme Court vacated the decree. New case plans were subsequently developed for the parents, but when the parents showed no progress and continued their alcoholic lifestyle, the DCYF filed new petitions to terminate both parents’ rights. In 2013, the Family Court terminated Mother’s and Father’s parental rights to their children. The Supreme Court denied and dismissed the parents’ appeals and affirmed the decree of the Family Court, holding that the trial justice did not err in finding, by clear and convincing evidence, competent proof to support the termination of the parents’ parental rights to their children. View "In re Steven D. " on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the former wife of Defendant, filed a complaint seeking protection from abuse from Defendant. A magistrate of the family court entered a temporary order restraining and enjoining Defendant from contacting Plaintiff. The chief judge of the family court affirmed the magistrate’s order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s conduct was of the type that the General Assembly mandated could be the predicate for the issuance of a protective order; and (2) the magistrate did not exceed her authority in issuing a civil restraining order after determining that the restraining order was necessary to protect Plaintiff from Defendant’s harassment. View "Cavanaugh v. Cavanaugh" on Justia Law