In re James H. et al.

Summary

The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court’s decree terminating Crystal M.’s parental rights to her three children. The court held that the trial justice properly admitted a psychological evaluation report and testimony concerning a prior arrest, and that legally competent evidence supported findings of parental unfitness based on Crystal’s failure to cooperate with reunification services and maintain contact with the children.

Holdings

1. The Family Court did not err in admitting Dr. Hirsch's report because Rule 706(a) does not provide that only the court may appoint an expert, and Rule 706(d) expressly preserves the parties' ability to call experts of their own selection.
2. The admission of Crystal's testimony about her prior arrest did not violate Rule 609 because the testimony was elicited to refresh her recollection about prior DCYF involvement, not to attack her credibility through evidence of a conviction.
3. The Family Court did not overlook or misconceive material evidence in finding Crystal unfit to parent her children, and the evidence supported termination of her parental rights by clear and convincing evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Family Court erred by admitting Dr. Steven Hirsch's psychological and neuropsychological evaluation report under Rhode Island Rule of Evidence 706.
2. Whether the Family Court erred by admitting Crystal's testimony about a prior arrest without evidence that the arrest resulted in a conviction under Rhode Island Rule of Evidence 609.
3. Whether the Family Court overlooked or misconceived material evidence concerning Crystal's compliance with DCYF case plans and recommendations when finding her unfit and terminating her parental rights.

Disposition

affirmed