James Lacera v. Department of Children, Youth, and Families ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • April 27, 2022
    Supreme Court
    No. 2021-193-Appeal.
    (P 20-4616M)
    James Lacera               :
    v.                   :
    Department of Children, Youth, and      :
    Families.
    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
    before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
    are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
    Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
    Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
    Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical
    or other formal errors in order that corrections may be
    made before the opinion is published.
    Supreme Court
    No. 2021-193-Appeal.
    (P 20-4616M)
    James Lacera                :
    v.                    :
    Department of Children, Youth, and     :
    Families.
    Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.
    OPINION
    Justice Long, for the Court. The plaintiff, James Lacera (plaintiff or Mr.
    Lacera), appeals from a final order of the Family Court dismissing his verified
    miscellaneous petition for declaratory judgment. This case came before the Supreme
    Court pursuant to an order directing the parties to appear and show cause why the
    issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After considering the
    parties’ written and oral submissions and reviewing the record, we conclude that
    cause has not been shown and that this appeal may be decided without further
    briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the order
    of the Family Court.
    -1-
    Facts and Procedural History
    This action for declaratory judgment stems from an investigation by the
    defendant, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families, into the maltreatment
    of Mr. Lacera’s biological grandchild, whom we refer to as “ML” to protect the
    child’s privacy. The Family Court dismissed the case brought by Mr. Lacera on the
    pleadings; therefore, we rely on the facts alleged in Mr. Lacera’s petition and accept
    them as true. E.g., Warfel v. Town of New Shoreham, 
    178 A.3d 988
    , 991 (R.I. 2018).
    We also take judicial notice of the parallel proceedings in the Family Court involving
    DCYF’s petition for termination of parental rights and the subsequent adoption of
    ML.1 See Doe v. Brown University, 
    253 A.3d 389
    , 395 (R.I. 2021).
    ML was placed in DCYF custody upon allegations of abuse and neglect
    against his parents. DCYF subsequently placed ML with a nonrelative foster family.
    Mr. Lacera commenced efforts to obtain placement of his grandchild through
    meetings with the assigned DCYF case workers; visits with ML; attempts to appear
    at court hearings, with counsel; and informal efforts to intervene in Family Court
    proceedings involving ML. Most notably, Mr. Lacera’s efforts included appearing
    in person and with representation before a justice of the Family Court at a bench
    conference to request leave to intervene in one or more of the DCYF proceedings
    1
    We note that Mr. Lacera does not as a factual matter dispute the final dispositions
    in those proceedings.
    -2-
    involving his son, who is ML’s father. The Family Court denied Mr. Lacera
    permission to do so. Mr. Lacera acknowledged at arguments before this Court that
    he did not attempt to intervene or obtain a denial from the Family Court from which
    he could appeal, nor did he enter an appearance, file any other motion, or place
    anything on the record.
    Mr. Lacera maintained in his petition that, throughout this process, he was
    eligible to adopt ML, and he expressed an unwavering desire to obtain placement of
    ML. Moreover, Mr. Lacera has maintained that DCYF never formally excluded him
    as a fit and willing relative for placement of ML.
    However, on October 7, 2020, the Family Court terminated Mr. Lacera’s son’s
    parental rights to ML.
    On October 28, 2020, Mr. Lacera filed the present petition for declaratory
    judgment against DCYF in the Family Court. Mr. Lacera sought declarations that
    (1) DCYF violated its statutory obligations under G.L. 1956 § 14-1-27(c) by not
    considering Mr. Lacera as a fit and willing relative for placement of ML; (2) DCYF
    never formally denied Mr. Lacera’s request for placement of ML; (3) DCYF violated
    its statutory obligations by not placing ML with Mr. Lacera, a fit and willing relative;
    (4) Mr. Lacera had priority status for the adoption of ML as he would have had if
    DCYF had granted him placement of ML initially; (5) DCYF violated its statutory
    obligations by not recruiting Mr. Lacera as an adoptive party for ML; (6) DCYF was
    -3-
    required to evaluate and consider Mr. Lacera as a party to adopt ML; (7) it was in
    the best interest of ML to be adopted by a suitable blood relative over an unrelated
    party; and (8) Mr. Lacera was entitled to any further relief the Family Court deemed
    proper. On that same date, Mr. Lacera sought a temporary restraining order and
    preliminary injunction to stay any adoption proceedings related to ML; the trial
    justice denied his motion.
    On October 30, 2020, DCYF moved to dismiss the petition and opposed Mr.
    Lacera’s motion for preliminary injunction, arguing that DCYF’s petition to
    terminate the parental rights of Mr. Lacera’s son had been granted and a final
    decision entered.
    A hearing on Mr. Lacera’s declaratory-judgment petition was initially
    scheduled for February 2021. On November 20, 2020, Mr. Lacera moved to
    expedite the matter, alleging that the adoption of ML by the foster family was
    imminent and scheduled for December 4, 2020. The trial justice denied the motion
    to expedite on an emergency basis, indicating that December 4, 2020, was not the
    adoption date; that the instant matter was scheduled for February 5, 2021; and that
    plaintiff was required to notify all parties involved.
    On December 9, 2020, ML’s foster family finalized their adoption of ML.
    Mr. Lacera’s declaratory-judgment action was continued from February
    through May 2021. Finally, on June 18, 2021, a trial justice convened the parties for
    -4-
    argument and to render a final decision. In addition to maintaining that the Family
    Court had terminated the parental rights of Mr. Lacera’s son, DCYF also argued that
    the trial justice could not reach behind the then-finalized adoption of ML. The trial
    justice granted DCYF’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Family
    Court Rules of Domestic Relations Procedure after finding that Mr. Lacera lacked
    standing to maintain the petition and that there was no legal basis for him to obtain
    what was tantamount to the reversal of an adoption. An order dismissing the petition
    entered, and Mr. Lacera timely appealed.
    Mr. Lacera maintains before this Court that he had standing to seek
    declaratory relief because he sought resolution of a justiciable controversy in which
    he maintained a personal stake.
    Discussion
    “In reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, this Court applies the same
    standard as the hearing justice.” Warfel, 178 A.3d at 991 (alterations omitted)
    (quoting Audette v. Poulin, 
    127 A.3d 908
    , 911 (R.I. 2015)). We assume the
    allegations in the petition are true and view the facts in the light most favorable to
    the plaintiff. 
    Id.
     A Rule 12(b)(6) analysis “requires a resolution of the overarching
    issue of justiciability[.]” Boyer v. Bedrosian, 
    57 A.3d 259
    , 270 (R.I. 2012).
    Moreover, we review such questions of law de novo. See N & M Properties, LLC v.
    Town of West Warwick ex rel. Moore, 
    964 A.2d 1141
    , 1144 (R.I. 2009).
    -5-
    Declaratory-judgment proceedings are novel statutory proceedings that
    facilitate the termination of controversies and allow the trial court “to declare rights,
    status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.”
    N & M Properties, LLC, 
    964 A.2d at 1144
     (quoting G.L. 1956 § 9-30-1); see
    Northern Trust Co. v. Zoning Board of Review of Town of Westerly, 
    899 A.2d 517
    ,
    520 n.6 (R.I. 2006) (mem.); Bradford Associates v. Rhode Island Division of
    Purchases, 
    772 A.2d 485
    , 489 (R.I. 2001). The decision to grant or deny declaratory
    relief is purely discretionary. E.g., Providence Teachers Union v. Napolitano, 
    690 A.2d 855
    , 856 (R.I. 1997). However, declaratory-judgment actions still require the
    trial justice to resolve issues of justiciability. N & M Properties, LLC, 
    964 A.2d at 1144-45
    . “The constituent parts of a justiciable claim include a plaintiff who has
    standing to pursue the action and some legal hypothesis which will entitle the
    plaintiff to real and articulable relief.” Bowen v. Mollis, 
    945 A.2d 314
    , 317 (R.I.
    2008) (quoting McKenna v. Williams, 
    874 A.2d 217
    , 226 (R.I. 2005)).
    A plaintiff has standing where that plaintiff has alleged “injury in fact,
    economic or otherwise.” Bowen, 
    945 A.2d at 317
     (brackets omitted) (quoting Rhode
    Island Ophthalmological Society v. Cannon, 
    113 R.I. 16
    , 22, 
    317 A.2d 124
    , 128
    (1974)). The injury must involve a “legally cognizable and protectable interest[,]”
    
    id.,
     that is “concrete and particularized[.]” 
    Id.
     (quoting Pontbriand v. Sundlun, 699
    -6-
    A.2d 856, 862 (R.I. 1997)). In short, the plaintiff must allege a “personal stake in
    the outcome of the controversy[.]” 
    Id.
     (quoting McKenna, 
    874 A.2d at 225
    ).
    In his petition, Mr. Lacera asserted that he had statutory priority for placement
    and adoption of ML pursuant to § 14-1-27(c), which provides, in pertinent part:
    “When DCYF makes application to the court to take a
    child into temporary custody due to allegations of abuse
    and/or neglect or dependency, DCYF shall have the duty
    to investigate the possibility of placing the child or
    children with a fit and willing relative not residing with the
    parents. DCYF shall conduct an assessment into the
    appropriateness of placement of the child or children with
    the relative within thirty (30) days of the child’s placement
    in the temporary custody of DCYF. If the department
    determines that the relative is a fit and proper person to
    have placement of the child, the child shall be placed with
    that relative, unless the particular needs of the child make
    the placement contrary to the child’s best interests. All
    placements with relatives shall be subject to criminal
    records checks * * *.” (Emphasis added.)
    Mr. Lacera conceded at oral arguments before this Court that any such
    declaration—in light of the fact that ML’s adoption has been formalized—would be
    a Pyrrhic victory but nevertheless an important declaration that he was wronged by
    DCYF’s actions over the past three years.
    We acknowledge the statutory rights contained in § 14-1-27.             We are
    constrained, however, to conclude that those rights were divested when the Family
    Court terminated the parental rights of Mr. Lacera’s son on October 7, 2020. See
    G.L. 1956 § 15-7-7 (the termination of parental rights “terminate[s] any and all legal
    -7-
    rights of the parent to the child”) (emphasis added). A termination of parental rights
    is “drastic and irreversible[,]” In re Manuel P., 
    252 A.3d 1211
    , 1218 (R.I. 2021)
    (quoting In re Rylee A., 
    233 A.3d 1040
    , 1051 (R.I. 2020)), and far-reaching.
    Mr. Lacera’s legal status as grandparent to ML stemmed solely from the legal
    status of Mr. Lacera’s son as ML’s father. See Suster v. Arkansas Department of
    Human Services, 
    858 S.W.2d 122
    , 124-25 (Ark. 1993) (holding that a grandparent
    did not have standing to intervene in pending proceedings because the grandparent’s
    rights under a grandparent visitation statute were derivative of the parent’s rights
    and were accordingly extinguished when a termination of parental rights was
    effected against the parent from whom the grandparent’s rights derived); In re
    Interest of Ditter, 
    326 N.W.2d 675
    , 677 (Neb. 1982) (holding that paternal
    grandparents’ rights to statutory visitation were divested when the father’s parental
    rights were terminated and that, therefore, the grandparents did not have standing to
    maintain an action for visitation); In re Kristy L., 
    787 A.2d 679
    , 683, 685-86 (Conn.
    Super. Ct. 1999) (holding that grandparents did not have standing to bring a habeas
    action to obtain custody of their biological grandchild because the grandparents’
    rights were derivative of the parent’s rights, which were terminated); cf. In re
    Nicholas, 
    457 A.2d 1359
    , 1360 (R.I. 1983) (holding that the termination of a father’s
    rights via an adoption was conclusive upon the legal rights of “all who might claim
    by, through, or under” the father, including extinguishing visitation rights of the
    -8-
    paternal grandfather under Rhode Island’s grandparents’ visitation statute). Contra
    Puleo v. Forgue, 
    610 A.2d 124
    , 125-26 (R.I. 1992) (holding in the context of an
    adoption that the adoption did not affect or limit a pre-existing grant of visitation
    under the grandparents’ visitation statute without further action by the court).
    Therefore, once Mr. Lacera’s son no longer retained his legal status as ML’s father,
    Mr. Lacera no longer had a “legally cognizable and protectable interest” under
    § 14-1-27(c). Bowen, 
    945 A.2d at 317
    . Accordingly, Mr. Lacera did not have
    standing to seek adjudication of his rights to ML when he filed the petition in the
    Family Court on October 28, 2020.
    We reject as disingenuous, however, DCYF’s argument both before the
    Family Court in the first instance and before this Court on appeal that, because the
    adoption of ML was finalized, the case was moot. In the Family Court, DCYF
    opposed the resolution of Mr. Lacera’s petition prior to finalization of the adoption
    proceedings by moving to dismiss and opposing Mr. Lacera’s motion for injunctive
    relief to stay the adoption proceedings; DCYF then argued that the petition was moot
    due to the subsequent adoption—an insincere position. DCYF is the sole authority
    in the State of Rhode Island designated to provide comprehensive social services for
    children and their families, G.L. 1956 § 42-72-2(5), and we are troubled by its stance
    in this case.
    -9-
    We remind DCYF that its work implicates and may even irreparably
    extinguish solemn constitutional and statutory rights, and all agency actions inside
    and outside the courts should reflect the grave nature of the department’s task. E.g.,
    Santosky v. Kramer, 
    455 U.S. 745
    , 759 (1982) (“When the State initiates a parental
    rights termination proceeding, it seeks not merely to infringe [a] fundamental liberty
    interest, but to end it.”); Stanley v. Illinois, 
    405 U.S. 645
    , 651 (1972) (“The integrity
    of the family unit has found protection in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
    Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the
    Ninth Amendment.”) (internal citations omitted).
    Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the Family Court and remand
    the record.
    - 10 -
    STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
    SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
    Licht Judicial Complex
    250 Benefit Street
    Providence, RI 02903
    OPINION COVER SHEET
    James Lacera v. Department of Children, Youth, and
    Title of Case
    Families.
    No. 2021-193-Appeal.
    Case Number
    (P 20-4616M)
    Date Opinion Filed                   April 27, 2022
    Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
    Justices
    Long, JJ.
    Written By                           Associate Justice Melissa A. Long
    Source of Appeal                     Providence County Family Court
    Judicial Officer from Lower Court    Associate Justice Richard A. Merola
    For Plaintiff:
    Patrick F. Dowling, Jr., Esq.
    Attorney(s) on Appeal                For Defendant:
    Benjamin Copple
    Department of Children, Youth, and Families
    SU-CMS-02A (revised June 2020)