In re Adrina T.
162 A.3d 658
| R.I. | 2017Background
- On Dec. 31, 2013, three‑month‑old Adrina suffered an oblique fracture of her right femur; parents (Hebert and Tirocchi) said she fell from the bed while father was briefly unattended with the child.
- DCYF filed a petition alleging abuse/neglect; a Family Court trial (June–Sept. 2014) produced conflicting medical testimony about whether the femur fracture and facial petechiae were accidental or nonaccidental.
- Treating pediatrician Dr. Adewusi (for DCYF) testified the fracture was unlikely from a bed fall and was concerning for inflicted injury; orthopedic and pediatric witnesses (Drs. Doak and Puleo) testified an oblique femur fracture could be accidental from a fall.
- The Family Court found both parents abused and neglected the child by clear and convincing evidence, citing inconsistencies in parents’ testimony and inferring concealment; child committed to DCYF custody.
- Hebert appealed; the Supreme Court reviewed whether the Family Court’s findings met the clear‑and‑convincing standard and whether inferences and precedent reliance were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/DCYF) | Defendant's Argument (Hebert) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to find abuse/neglect by clear and convincing evidence | Medical findings + parents’ inconsistent behavior justify inference of nonaccidental injury | Evidence was inconclusive; medical testimony conflicted and Hebert was not present at injury | Vacated as to Hebert — evidence insufficient to meet clear and convincing standard |
| Whether Family Court could infer parental culpability without identifying perpetrator | Where facts permit, court may draw inferences that parental inaction equals culpability | Cited precedents inapposite; cannot impute abuse to a parent who was not present absent sufficient evidence | Trial court erred to rely on those inferences here; Vannarith and Chester were distinguishable |
| Proper reliance on In re Vannarith D. and In re Chester J. | Those cases support drawing adverse inferences from conduct and circumstantial evidence | Those cases involved different factual patterns (constructive possession; repeated severe injuries) and are not analogous | Court found both cases inapplicable and that trial justice misapplied them |
| Weight to be given conflicting medical testimony and adverse credibility findings | Treating physician’s testimony (Adewusi) supported abuse inference | Competing expert testimony (Doak, Puleo) permitted accidental cause; trial justice overlooked material conflicting evidence | Court held trial justice overlooked/misconceived material evidence; medical conflict precluded clear and convincing finding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Vannarith D., 731 A.2d 685 (R.I. 1999) (discusses drawing inferences from circumstantial facts in possession cases)
- In re Chester J., 754 A.2d 772 (R.I. 2000) (upheld termination where overwhelming evidence and pattern of multiple injuries supported inferences of abuse)
- In re Adner G., 925 A.2d 951 (R.I. 2007) (articulates the clear‑and‑convincing standard and limits on permissible inferences)
- In re Mackenzie C., 877 A.2d 674 (R.I. 2005) (appellate deference to Family Court factfinding unless justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence)
- In re Veronica T., 700 A.2d 1366 (R.I. 1997) (court must assess whether legally competent evidence supports abuse/neglect findings)
- In re Nicole B., 703 A.3d 612 (R.I. 1997) (upheld abuse finding where parents offered no adequate explanation for multiple injuries)
- In re Frances, 505 A.2d 1380 (R.I. 1986) (similar principle regarding unexplained multiple injuries)