Supreme Court

Family Case Summaries 2015

2015-217 In re Livia B.L. (show cause)

The respondent father appeals from a Family Court decree terminating his parental rights and granting the petition for adoption filed by Livia’s mother and stepfather. The respondent argues that the Family Court judge erred in finding that he had abandoned Livia. The respondent contends that the Family Court judge wrongfully based his finding of abandonment solely on the respondent’s incarceration and disregarded important evidence.

2014-277 In re King J.
2015-216 In re Saint J. (show cause)

The respondent father appeals from a Family Court decree finding dependency as to his two sons. The respondent contends there was no clear and convincing evidence substantiating the Family Court judge’s finding of dependency. The respondent asserts that DCYF did not submit medical testimony confirming that the respondent removed one child’s extra finger. The respondent also argues that DCYF failed to present clear and convincing evidence that he acted inappropriately or in a harmful manner towards his children.

2015-230 In re Kyeshon J. (show cause)

The respondent father appeals from a decree in the Family Court terminating the respondent’s parental rights to his children. The respondent argues that the Family Court erred in finding him unfit by reason of conduct or conditions detrimental to his children. He asserts that this ground was not contained in the filed petitions. He also contends that the Family Court judge erred in finding that he had the financial ability to provide care and maintenance to his children. The respondent notes that the termination of his parental rights is not in the best interests of his children because he enjoys a good relationship with them.

2015-272 In re Lamar M. (full briefing)
2015-274

The respondent parents each appeal from a decree terminating their parental rights to their son. The respondents assert that DCYF failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that they were unfit parents. They also argue that DCYF failed to submit clear and convincing evidence that the termination of the respondents’ parental rights was in the best interests of their son.