Lowell Harris v. Priscilla Evans, 250 A.3d 553

Background

In May 2015 Harris filed to modify custody/obtain visitation; Evans initially sought sole custody and supervised visitation for Harris.
Family Court ordered temporary physical placement to Evans and supervised visits for Harris; a protracted trial ran Feb 2017–Nov 2018 with voluminous testimony.
Evans asserted Harris suffered from PTSD and demanded a neuropsychological exam; Harris obtained VA screening reporting no PTSD, which Evans disputed.
On May 30, 2019 the Family Court awarded joint custody, with physical placement to Evans and unsupervised visitation to Harris (every other weekend, one weeknight, and one week in summer), finding Harris loving and fit and Evans obstructive.
After appeal, the Supreme Court remanded limited contempt/holiday issues; on remand the Family Court (Dec. 24, 2019) found Evans in contempt for refusing ordered visitation on specified dates, awarded make-up visitation and costs, and barred recording of the other parent during exchanges.
The Supreme Court affirmed both the custody/visitation judgment and the contempt/remand ruling, rejecting Evans’ evidentiary and remand-scope challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Harris)	Defendant's Argument (Evans)	Held
Whether the trial justice improperly relied on an unadmitted VA report stating Harris did not have PTSD	Harris disputed any procedural defect and relied on VA screening to rebut Evans’ PTSD claim	Evans argued the VA report was not in evidence and could not be considered	Court: Any reference to the VA report was at most harmless; ample admissible evidence supported fitness finding, so no reversible error
Whether awarding Harris unsupervised visitation was error under best-interests standard	Harris sought unsupervised visitation and joint custody	Evans argued Harris was unfit and unsafe alone with the child due to PTSD and past incident	Court: Trial justice properly applied Pettinato factors and credited testimony showing Harris was loving and provided a safe environment; unsupervised visitation affirmed
Whether the trial justice made erroneous factual/credibility findings	Harris relied on supervisor reports and witnesses supporting his parenting	Evans contended numerous factual findings were wrong and evidence was misconstrued	Court: Deferential standard applies; trial justice’s credibility determinations and factual findings were supported and not clearly wrong
Whether contempt findings and remedial orders on remand exceeded scope (including prohibition on recording)	Harris sought remand and enforcement; asked for make-up visitation and costs	Evans argued contempt findings pre-dated stay, testimony was inadmissible, and Family Court exceeded remand by imposing recording ban	Court: Contempt findings supported by clear and convincing evidence and credibility assessments; Family Court did not exceed remand scope—the recording prohibition was a permissible remedial measure

Key Cases Cited

Africano v. Castelli, 740 A.2d 1251 (R.I. 1999) (trial‑court factual findings in family matters afforded great weight)
Africano v. Castelli, 837 A.2d 721 (R.I. 2003) (modification/custody decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion centered on child's best interests)
Pettinato v. Pettinato, 582 A.2d 909 (R.I. 1990) (enumerating best‑interests factors for custody/visitation)
Dupré v. Dupré, 857 A.2d 242 (R.I. 2004) (trial justice has broad discretion in custody determinations)
Town of Coventry v. Baird Properties, LLC, 13 A.3d 614 (R.I. 2011) (civil contempt requires clear and convincing proof of violation of specific court order)
Now Courier, LLC v. Better Carrier Corp., 965 A.2d 429 (R.I. 2009) (deference to trial justice’s contempt findings and credibility assessments)
Thompson v. Thompson, 973 A.2d 499 (R.I. 2009) (once appeal docketed, lower court lacks jurisdiction except as provided by remand)
State v. Paola, 59 A.3d 99 (R.I. 2013) (appellate deference to trial judge’s opportunity to observe witness demeanor)