Supreme Court

Family Case Summaries 2013

2013-369 Carol Maccarone v. Raymond Maccarone (show cause)
2013-370

The plaintiff successfully moved to enforce a property settlement agreement. On appeal, the defendant contends that the Family Court judge erred in ordering him to pay $930.31 per month to the plaintiff as her share of the defendant’s pension. He asserts this violated the clear terms of the property settlement agreement, which provided that the plaintiff would not be entitled to her share of his pension until he retired. He also contends that the judge’s award of attorney’s fees in favor of the plaintiff was not appropriate because he was not found in contempt and there were no findings made that his estate had sufficient funds to pay the attorney’s fees. Additionally, the plaintiff cross-appeals from the denial of her motion to dismiss the defendant’s appeal.

2013-318 Pacheco v. Marulanda (show cause)

The defendant appeals from an order modifying his right to visitation with his daughter. The defendant claims that the hearing justice abused his discretion in ordering the modification of defendant’s visitation after finding defendant in contempt of a previously entered consent order, the terms of which defendant asserts he had misconstrued.

2013-291 In re Steven D. and Zachary D. (show cause)
2013-292

These cases are before the Court on appeal by the respondent-mother and the respondent-father from a decree terminating their parental rights as to their two children. The parents challenge several aspects of the trial justice’s findings in the Family Court. 

2013-198 Rosanna Cavanaugh v. Brian Cavanaugh (show cause)

This case is before the Court on appeal by the defendant from an order restraining and enjoining him from contacting his former wife outside the restrictions outlined in the order. On appeal, defendant argues that the hearing magistrate lacked the authority to enter the order, given that plaintiff’s complaint was filed pursuant to the Domestic Abuse Prevention Act at Rhode Island General Laws § 15-15-1, et seq., and the hearing magistrate specifically found that the case did not sound in threats of physical harm.