Supreme Court

Family Case Summaries 2021

2021-336 In re Royal M. (show cause)

The respondent appeals from a decree terminating his parental rights to his daughter. The respondent contends that the Family Court justice erred in finding him unfit because he did not comply with case plans of the Department of Children, Youth and their Families (DCYF). He also contends that the Family Court justice erred in finding that DCYF made reasonable efforts to secure him services to enable him to reunite with his daughter.

2021-328-A. Anne Capaldi v. Steven Capaldi (show cause)

The defendant appeals from a Family Court order awarding the plaintiff half of the marital portion of the defendant’s pension in this divorce action. The defendant contends that the doctrine of laches barred the plaintiff’s motion for relief to recover half of the pension, as the motion was filed 24 years after the final decree of divorce. The defendant also contends that the plaintiff’s motion was untimely under the 20-year statute of limitations, § 9-1-17, for actions on judgments or decrees. The defendant additionally argues that the Family Court judge failed to analyze the equitable distribution factors, as the property settlement agreement in this action was merged with the Family Court final decree.

2021-35-A In re Rachelle L. (show cause)

The respondent father appeals from a decree terminating his parent rights to his child, Rachelle. The respondent argues that the trial justice erred in finding by clear and convincing evidence that: 1) he was unfit and it was improbable that the child could be returned to him safely within a reasonable time; 2) the Department of Children, Youth, and Families made reasonable efforts to reunify; and 3) it was in the child’s best interests that respondent’s parental rights be terminated.

2021-42 Terry Ann Smith v. Andrew Smith (show cause)

The defendant appeals from an order of the Family Court setting aside a conveyance of marital property and directing that proceeds be placed in an escrow account.

2021-16-A. In re Donnell R-H. (show cause)

The respondent appeals from a decree terminating her parental rights to her son, Donnell. On appeal, respondent asserts that the trial judge erred: (1) in finding that respondent had a chronic substance problem that rendered her unfit to parent Donnell; (2) in finding that DCYF proved respondent’s unfitness by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) in finding that it was in Donnell’s best interests that respondent’s parental rights be terminated.

2021-193-A. James Lacera, Jr. v. DCYF (show cause)

The plaintiff appeals from a Family Court judgment granting DCYF’s motion to dismiss. The plaintiff’s suit alleged that DCYF failed to consider him as a proper party to have placement of— and to possibly adopt—his grandson, when the child was removed from the home of his parents, whose rights were eventually terminated. It is undisputed that the child was adopted by his foster family soon after the parents’ rights were terminated. The trial judge determined that the plaintiff lacked standing to assert his claim and dismissed the complaint in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6) of the Family Court Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure.

2021-19-A. Donna DiDonato v. Germano DiDonato (full briefing)

The defendant appeals from a decision pending entry of final judgment of divorce from the plaintiff. On appeal, defendant claims that the trial justice erred: (1) in failing to recognize the DiDonato Family Living Irrevocable Trust (the trust); (2) in sanctioning defendant $50,000; (3) in ordering defendant to pay plaintiff $16,000; (4) in assigning 50 percent, or $101,471.22, of the value of certain certificates of deposit (CDs) to plaintiff; (5) in assigning 50 percent, or $157,000, of the appreciation in value of the marital home, to plaintiff; (6) in assigning 50 percent of defendant’s VA pension to plaintiff; (7) in assigning all of the appreciation in value of certain property located in Warwick to plaintiff; and (8) in using a “double standard” which favored plaintiff and disfavored defendant.

These consolidated cases are before the Court on appeal by the respondent father from the termination of his parental rights to his two children. The respondent’s parental rights were terminated under § 15-7-7(a)(3). The respondent argues the judge erred in finding that he was unfit, that DCYF made reasonable efforts, and in making findings on reasonable efforts and the likelihood of reunification before the end of trial at a permanency hearing.