Summary
The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed a Family Court decree terminating Clifton Barr’s parental rights to his son, Jah-nell B. The court held that clear and convincing evidence supported findings of parental unfitness under Rhode Island General Laws § 15-7-7 and that the Department of Children, Youth and Families had made reasonable efforts toward reunification.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether clear and convincing evidence supported the Family Court's finding that the respondent was unfit under G.L. 1956 § 15-7-7(a)(1), (3), and (4).
- Whether DCYF proved by clear and convincing evidence that it made reasonable efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship before termination of parental rights.
Holdings
- The Family Court's finding that the respondent was unfit was supported by legally competent evidence and was not clearly wrong. The evidence supported termination under the statutory grounds concerning willful neglect, lack of a substantial probability of safe return within a reasonable time, and lack of contact.
- The record supported the Family Court's finding that DCYF made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent with Jah-nell before termination of parental rights.
Key quotations
“in order to permanently sever the rights of a parent in his or her children, the trial justice must make a determination that the parent is unfit and [t]he state must prove parental unfitness by clear and convincing evidence in order to satisfy the parent’s right to due process.” (at 10)
“the concept of reasonable efforts is not a rigid standard, but one of some flexibility that must be defined by the particular facts and circumstances in a case.” (at 13)
“We do not “desire to ‘burden the agency with the additional responsibility of holding the hand of a recalcitrant parent.’”” (at 15)
Factual background
DCYF became involved with Jah-nell's family in 2009 because of concerns about the child's safety, and the Family Court removed Jah-nell from his mother's care and placed him with DCYF and then in foster care. The respondent, the child's biological father, was incarcerated for substantial portions of the child's early life and had inconsistent visitation, failed to provide financial support, lacked stable housing, and did not complete required reunification objectives, including a parent-child evaluation. A clinical psychologist concluded that reunification presented a high-risk situation, and the Family Court found the respondent unfit and determined that DCYF had made more than reasonable efforts to reunify him with Jah-nell.
Procedural history
The Family Court adjudicated the child dependent and placed him in the legal custody of DCYF. DCYF filed a termination petition, and after a six-day trial the Family Court found the respondent unfit, found that DCYF had made reasonable reunification efforts, and terminated his parental rights under G.L. 1956 § 15-7-7(a)(1), (3), and (4). The respondent timely appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed.