9 A.3d 1227
R.I.2010Background
- In December 2008, DCYF removed Haney’s four children after the mother’s hospitalization for intoxication and DCYF filed a neglect petition amended to include dependency.
- In February 2009, Family Court held a probable-cause hearing and found probable cause to support removal on clear and convincing evidence, with credibility findings against Haney.
- In April 2009, Haney moved for recusal, asserting bias and appearance of partiality due to the court’s findings and its association with DCYF.
- During the subsequent trial, DCYF investigators testified about domestic violence, parental substance abuse, and unsafe conditions, including a child being left unsupervised and a mother’s intoxication.
- The trial court found the children neglected and dependent as to Haney and ordered DCYF to assume care pending further order.
- Haney appealed, arguing recusal error and insufficiency of the neglect/dependency findings; the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed without further briefing or argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial judge displayed bias requiring recusal | Haney asserts bias and appearance of partiality based on findings | State contends no prejudgment; recusal not warranted | Recusal not warranted; no bias shown |
| Whether the judge’s association with DCYF invalidates the proceedings | Haney argues improper association with DCYF indicates bias | Court’s function includes balancing child welfare with state and family interests | Association with DCYF not evidence of bias |
| Whether the neglect and dependency findings were supported by clear and convincing evidence | Haney disputes the sufficiency of evidence of neglect/dependency | Evidence showed risk to child welfare due to supervision, substance abuse, DV | Findings supported by clear and convincing evidence; credibility determinations given deference |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Shawn B., 864 A.2d 621 (R.I.2005) (bias standard for recusal burden remains substantial)
- In re Michael T., 796 A.2d 473 (R.I.2002 (mem.)) (bias standard; memory of precedent for recusal)
- In re Damien M., 819 A.2d 213 (R.I.2003 (mem.)) (recusal standard and appearance of partiality)
- Olivieri v. Olivieri, 760 A.2d 1246 (R.I.2000) (bias and impartiality considerations)
- Cavanagh v. Cavanagh, 118 R.I. 608, 375 A.2d 911 (1977) (recusal and bias jurisprudence)
- In re Ephraim L., 862 A.2d 196 (R.I.2004) (need for factual basis supporting dependency/neglect findings)
- In re Jonathan, 415 A.2d 1036 (R.I.1980) (requirement of clear harm to sustain neglect/dep findings)
- Parella v. Montalbano, 899 A.2d 1226 (R.I.2006) (credibility determinations within trial judge’s purview)
- Hood v. Hawkins, 478 A.2d 181 (R.I.1984) (credibility as function of trial judge in nonjury trial)
- In re Isabella C., 852 A.2d 550 (R.I.2004) (deferential standard for reviewing findings of neglect/dependency)