In re Jah-nell B.
116 A.3d 784
| R.I. | 2015Background
- DCYF became involved in Jah-nell’s case in April 2009 due to mother’s unstable behavior and alleged child endangerment.
- Jah-nell was removed from his mother and placed in DCYF custody in May 2009, later placed in a nonrelative foster home.
- Respondent Barr, Jah-nell’s father, admitted neglect in 2009 while incarcerated, and remained largely absent from Jah-nell’s life.
- DCYF filed a petition in January 2012 to terminate parental rights of both parents, under G.L. 1956 § 15-7-7(a)(3).
- A six-day Family Court trial in May–June 2013 presented extensive testimony; DCYF sought termination based on unfitness and lack of probable return.
- On October 17, 2013, the Family Court terminated Barr’s parental rights; the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was clear and convincing evidence of parental unfitness | DCYF argues unfitness supported by failure to complete plans and inconsistent contact | Barr contends record lacks clear and convincing proof of unfitness | Yes; record supports unfitness by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether DCYF made reasonable efforts to reunify | DCYF made more than reasonable efforts, including visitation and case plans | Barr argues efforts were insufficient or inadequate | Yes; DCYF’s efforts deemed reasonable despite visits/case-plan shortcomings |
| Whether termination was in Jah-nell’s best interests | Permanency and stability favored termination | Barr contends possible future reunification if given more time | Yes; best interests favored permanency with a stable home |
| Whether there was substantial probability Jah-nell could be returned to Barr | Unfitness and time in care precluded return | Barr asserted potential for reunification | No substantial probability of return within a reasonable time |
| Whether Barr’s lack of contact violated § 15-7-7(a)(4) | Lack of contact supported unfitness | Barr claims occasional contact or attempts were made | Yes; prolonged absence and lack of meaningful contact supported termination |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Rosalie H., 889 A.2d 199 (R.I. 2006) (parental unfitness supported by failure to cooperate and contact)
- In re Kristen B., 558 A.2d 200 (R.I. 1989) (plan compliance and minimal acts toward reunification required)
- In re Amber P., 877 A.2d 608 (R.I. 2005) (reasonable efforts flexible standard; not extraordinary efforts required)
- In re Alvia K., 909 A.2d 498 (R.I. 2006) (reasonable efforts defined by case facts and circumstances)
- In re Evelyn C., 68 A.3d 70 (R.I. 2013) (standards for reviewing termination of parental rights)
- In re Dayvon G., 10 A.3d 448 (R.I. 2010) (best-interests predominates after unfitness established)
- In re Kristina L., 520 A.2d 574 (R.I. 1987) (custodian responsibilities and parental custody rights)
- In re Robert S., 840 A.2d 1146 (R.I. 2004) (parental cooperation as factor in unfitness)