Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court summarily affirmed a Family Court decree terminating Catherine Clark’s parental rights to her three children. The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported findings under G.L. 1956 § 15-7-7(a)(2)(iii) and (a)(3), including chronic substance abuse, failure to complete treatment, and the lack of a reasonable prospect of reunification. The court also concluded that termination was in the children’s best interests.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether legally competent evidence supported the Family Court's finding under § 15-7-7(a)(2)(iii) that Clark had a chronic substance abuse problem and that the children could not return to her custody within a reasonable period.
- Whether legally competent evidence supported the Family Court's finding under § 15-7-7(a)(3) that there was no substantial probability the children could return to Clark's care within a reasonable period after services were offered.
- Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination of Clark's parental rights as being in the children's best interests.
Holdings
- The record contained more than ample evidence to support the Family Court's finding that Clark had a chronic substance abuse problem and that the prognosis indicated the children would not be able to return to her custody within a reasonable period.
- The record contained more than ample evidence to support the finding that there was no substantial probability the children would be able to return to Clark's care within a reasonable period, considering their ages and need for a permanent home.
- Clear and convincing evidence supported the Family Court's finding that termination of Clark's parental rights was in the best interests of the three children.
Key quotations
“Such findings are entitled to great weight, and this Court will not disturb them on appeal unless they clearly are wrong or if in making those findings the trial justice misconceived or overlooked material evidence.” (843)
“Based on all of this evidence, especially the respondent’s failure to complete a substance abuse program following her last relapse, we conclude that more than ample evidence exists to support the trial justice’s findings” (845)
Factual background
The children were committed to the care, custody, and control of DCYF in June 1996 after Clark left them alone during the night, and the Family Court later found them abused and neglected. Clark had a longstanding cocaine and alcohol abuse history, relapsed in 1996, repeatedly failed to complete treatment programs, tested positive for cocaine, and did not consistently comply with DCYF case plans. She also continued a relationship with Brian Piette despite case-plan restrictions related to the children's safety.
Procedural history
The Family Court found Catherine Clark unfit under G.L. 1956 § 15-7-7(a)(2)(iii) and (a)(3), based principally on chronic substance abuse, failure to complete treatment, and the absence of a substantial probability that the children could return to her care within a reasonable period. Clark appealed. The Supreme Court summarily decided the appeal, denied and dismissed it, affirmed the termination decree, and remanded the papers to the Family Court.
Remand instructions
The papers in the case were remanded to the Family Court.