In re Steven D.
23 A.3d 1138
| R.I. | 2011Background
- DCYF petitioned to terminate Kathleen and Ronald D.’s parental rights to Steven and Zachary under § 15-7-7(a)(3) after placement of the children in DCYF custody for about 12 months and services were offered; court granted trial and ultimately terminated rights but this Court vacated the decree; removals began in 2005 when Kathleen was hospitalized, with DCYF placing the children with Ronald’s sister; multiple case plans and services (substance-abuse evaluations, anger management, mental health counseling, parent aides) were provided or offered, yet ongoing concerns about Kathleen’s alleged alcohol use and anger persisted; Kathleen’s April 2008 positive alcohol test occurred during trial, and the trial court conducted in-camera interviews of the children; Kathleen was found by the Family Court to be unfit based on a substance-abuse problem and anger issues, while Ronald’s fitness was not clearly established; the Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the decree due to insufficient showing of reasonable efforts to reunify Kathleen and, separately, inadequate findings of Ronald’s unfitness; the matter was remanded with directions to address Kathleen’s case more fully and to reassess Ronald’s status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DCYF made reasonable efforts to reunify Kathleen | Kathleen's denial of alcoholism did not excuse DCYF from offering treatment | DCYF offered or referred Kathleen to multiple evaluations and services but failed to provide ongoing substance-abuse counseling | DCYF did not show reasonable efforts to reunify Kathleen; vacate part of decree |
| Whether Kathleen had a substance-abuse problem requiring treatment before TPR petition | Evidence showed Kathleen smelled of alcohol and discussed past drinking | Evaluations concluded no current substance-abuse problem; services offered were insufficient | Kathleen’s substance-abuse barrier required addressing with treatment not adequately provided; reversible error for termination |
| Whether Ronald was unfit based on evidence presented | Ronald had health issues and alcohol use; evidence supported unfitness | Ronald’s health limitations alone did not prove unfitness; lack of specific findings | Ronald’s unfitness findings were insufficiently articulated; vacate as to Ronald |
| Admission of the April 2, 2008 substance-abuse test results | Test results supported concerns about reunification | No proper foundation admissibility for test results | Admission of test results was improper, but not necessary to resolve the appeal because decree vacated on other grounds |
| Whether the best-interests determination supports termination | Termination warranted given prolonged concerns and failed reunification efforts | Best interests balanced against parental rights; insufficient basis to terminate given Ronald’s status | Not reached due to vacatur of decree on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Brooklyn M., 933 A.2d 1113 (R.I. 2007) (three-step review for termination; deference to trial court findings)
- In re Manuel P., 889 A.2d 192 (R.I. 2006) (DCYF must offer services addressing barriers; noncompliance does not excuse offering treatment)
- In re Natalya C., 946 A.2d 198 (R.I. 2008) (mental-health issues must be treated; failure to address mental health undermines reunification efforts)
- In re Christopher B., 823 A.2d 301 (R.I. 2003) (reasonableness of reunification efforts; case-plan design to address problems)
- In re Jose Luis R.H., 968 A.2d 875 (R.I. 2009) (reasonable efforts require offering or providing services to address problems)
- Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (U.S. 1982) (due-process requirement of clear and convincing evidence in parental-rights termination)