Preview:

Supreme Court
No. 2000-464-Appeal.
(96-2754-01)
(96-2754-02)
(96-2754-03)
(96-2754-04)
(96-2754-05)
In re Olivia C. et al.                                                                                      :
Present: Williams, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ.
O P I N I O N
PER CURIAM.   The respondent, Debra C., has raised nineteen grounds in her appeal of a
judgment of the Family Court terminating her parental rights to her five children.   The case came before
this Court for oral argument on October 2, 2001, pursuant to an order directing the parties to show
cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided.   Having heard oral
arguments of counsel for the parties and having reviewed the record, we hold that cause has not been
shown, and we summarily affirm the judgment of the Family Court.
The evidence underlying the terminations is carefully detailed at length in the Family Court’s
twenty-seven-page decision.   The facts pertinent to our opinion are that respondent had a history of
abusive relationships, and her children witnessed repeated incidents of domestic violence, including
sexual assault by her boyfriend, Sebastian Atrysek.  Although he previously had been charged with child
molestation, respondent left the children alone with him allegedly for ten minutes in July 1996, and, on
returning, she found Cynthia, then two years old, naked with blood on her face.   The respondent
-1-




nevertheless expressly refused to keep Atrysek away from her children, and she admitted neglect in
September 1997.   In addition, Christopher and Olivia both disclosed to social workers that they had
been sexually abused by their mother, and in April 1999, respondent entered an  Alford plea with
respect to allegations of sexual abuse of Christopher. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91
S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).
Since becoming involved in the case in 1996,  the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth
and Families (DCYF) provided seven case plans, none of which respondent fulfilled.  The DCYF made
substantial efforts to provide respondent with services to aid her personally and to assist her in caring for
her children, but respondent repeatedly missed counseling sessions and DCYF appointments, and she
refused to attend psychiatric evaluations and sexual offender programs.   By 1999, each of the children
had been placed in the care and custody of DCYF, four in preadoptive placements.   The respondent
missed many scheduled visits with the children.
In general,
“In reviewing cases of termination of parental rights, this Court
examines the record to determine whether legally competent evidence
exists to support the findings of the trial justice.                                                            * * * These factual
findings are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed unless the
trial justice was clearly wrong or misconceived material evidence.”   In
re Russell S., 763 A.2d 648, 649 (R.I. 2000) (per curiam) (citing In re
Dennis P., 749 A.2d 582, 585 (R.I. 2000) (per curiam)).
Because the termination of parental rights is one of the most serious deprivations the state can impose,
“the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent [whose rights are in jeopardy] is
unfit.”  In re Russell S., 763 A.2d at 649.  Once the state has met that burden, “the best interests of the
child outweigh all other considerations.”   In re Antonio G., 657 A.2d 1052, 1057 (R.I. 1995) (quoting
In re Kristen B., 558 A.2d 200, 203 (R.I. 1989)).
-2-




The respondent challenged the Family Court’s findings that she sexually assaulted Christopher
and Olivia and that there was no reasonable likelihood that respondent could be reunited with her
children.  We have consistently held that the Family Court’s findings are entitled to great weight, and the
particular findings challenged by respondent are clearly and abundantly supported by the evidence in the
record.  Accordingly, we are not persuaded to disturb those findings on appeal.
The respondent also challenged a number of the Family Court’s evidentiary rulings regarding the
admission of counselors’ records and the children’s statements to social workers. However,  “the
admission of hearsay evidence does not automatically require reversal. * * * Rather, we examine the
hearsay testimony to determine the probable impact that it may have had upon the factfinder.”   In re
Christopher H., 696 A.2d 940, 942 (R.I. 1997) (per curiam) (citing State v. Burns, 524 A.2d 564, 568
(R.I. 1987)).
We are of the opinion that the hearsay challenges raised by respondent do not merit reversal.
Here,  “the record has revealed ample, independent, competent evidence to support” clearly and
convincingly the Family Court’s findings on the issues for which the challenged records and statements
were offered.  In re Jessica C., 690 A.2d 1357, 1361 (R.I. 1997).
Finally, the respondent argued that the Family Court erred in refusing to grant her request for
funds to retain an independent expert to examine Christopher.   In light of the testimony of social
workers Laurie Riccio, Cheryl O’Donnell, and Kevin Hall and Doctors David Carpentier and John
Parsons, as well as the trial justice’s determination that another evaluation “would do a disservice to the
children and accomplish basically nothing,” we are of the opinion that the respondent failed to show
good cause for an additional expert examination of Christopher.   As such, we conclude that the Family
-3-




Court’s refusal to grant respondent’s request was proper.   See In re Christina V., 749 A.2d 1105,
1112 (R.I. 2000) (per curiam).
In concluding that the respondent’s rights should be terminated under G.L. 1956 § 15-7-7, the
trial justice found by clear and convincing evidence that the children had been in the care and custody of
DCYF for at least twelve months, that DCYF had offered the respondent numerous services and case
plans, and that there was no substantial probability that the children could be safely returned to their
mother’s care within a reasonable period of time.   The trial justice also found that the respondent had
been involved in a series of violent relationships, including a relationship with a man whom she knew had
physically assaulted her daughter, that she had sexually abused Christopher and Olivia, and that she was
unfit.   He concluded that it was in the best interest of each of the five children that the respondent’s
parental rights be terminated.    The record in this case is replete with evidence supporting these
conclusions.   Accordingly, we summarily deny and dismiss the respondent’s appeal and affirm the
judgment of the Family Court, to which we return the papers in the case.
-4-




AMENDED
COVER SHEET
TITLE OF CASE:                           In re Olivia C. et al.
DOCKET NO:                               2000-464-Appeal.
COURT:                                   Supreme
DATE OPINION FILED:   October 24, 2001
Appeal from
SOURCE OF APPEAL:     Family             County:                                                            Providence
JUDGE FROM OTHER COURT:                  Mutter, J.
JUSTICES:                                Williams, C.J., Lederberg, Bourcier, Flanders, and Goldberg, JJ.
                                         Not Participating
                                         Dissenting
WRITTEN BY:                              Per Curiam
ATTORNEYS:                               Frank P. Iacono, Jr./Thomas J. Corrigan, Jr.
                                         For Plaintiff
ATTORNEYS:                               Joseph F. Hook




For Defendant

Download 00-464.pdf

Rhode Island Law