In re J.B. ( 2023 )

April 27, 2023
Supreme Court
No. 2022-23-Appeal.
(KJ 20-578)
In re J.B. :
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. 2022-23-Appeal.
(KJ 20-578)
In re J.B. :
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Long, JJ.
OPINION
Justice Long, for the Court. The respondent father, William B., Jr. (father
or respondent), appeals from a decree of the Family Court, issued pursuant to G.L.
1956 § 15-7-7(a)(3), terminating his parental rights to his son, J.B. 1 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 we may decide this case without
further briefing or argument. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the
decree of the Family Court.
1
To protect the identity of the child, this opinion uses the respondent father’s first
name and last initial only. We intend no disrespect.
-1-
Facts and Procedural History
On January 27, 2020, the Department of Children, Youth, and Families
(DCYF) filed a petition in Family Court to terminate the parental rights of J.B.’s
mother and father based on two independent grounds of unfitness: (1) The parents’
substance-use disorder and their prognosis indicated that J.B. was unable to return
to their custody within a reasonable period of time; and (2) J.B. had been placed with
DCYF for a minimum of twelve months without a substantial probability that he
could return to his parents’ care within a reasonable period of time. 2
The chief judge of the Family Court held a six-day bench trial on DCYF’s
termination petition in June 2021, during which he admitted nineteen exhibits and
heard testimony from respondent; the DCYF caseworkers assigned to work with the
family; John Parsons, Ph.D., who conducted respondent’s psychological and parent-
child evaluation; a DCYF child protective investigations supervisor; Analisa
Goncalves, a clinical therapist at the Providence Center; and Omer Cermik, M.D., a
psychiatrist at the Providence Center. A summary of the testimony and documentary
evidence relevant to our review follows.
J.B. was born on November 25, 2013, and lived with respondent and his
mother until they separated from one another. After the separation, the Family Court
2
J.B.’s mother voluntarily terminated her parental rights and signed a direct consent
adoption.
-2-
entered an order in October 2016 granting joint legal custody to the parents, placing
J.B. with his mother, and providing respondent with a visitation schedule. However,
on February 22, 2018, respondent contacted the DCYF hotline to inform DCYF that
he suspected that J.B.’s mother was using illegal drugs. DCYF investigated
respondent’s allegations, filed a neglect petition, and placed J.B. in relative foster
care with his maternal grandmother, where he currently resides. DCYF declined to
place J.B. with respondent based on his previous criminal record, prior substance
use, his mental health history, the fact that he was not currently caring for J.B., and
what DCYF perceived as his delay in reporting J.B.’s mother’s substance use.
DCYF ultimately developed three case plans in an effort to facilitate
respondent’s reunification with his son. All three case plans required respondent to
participate in efforts to remediate aspects of his life concerning potential substance-
use disorders, his mental health, and his ability to parent J.B.
After meeting with DCYF caseworker Patrick Antoine, who developed the
first case plan, respondent attended multiple meetings with Dr. Parsons, during
which he underwent a comprehensive psychological evaluation and completed an
interactive session with J.B. The respondent’s experience with Dr. Parsons was
largely unsuccessful. Doctor Parsons described respondent as condescending, rude,
and somewhat intimidating. Doctor Parsons ultimately diagnosed respondent with
a personality disorder after assessing respondent’s prior criminal history, previous
-3-
time spent in incarceration, and mental health challenges, and administering the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
Doctor Parsons prepared a psychological test report indicating that
reunification between respondent and J.B. was at moderate risk for multiple reasons,
including respondent’s noncompliance with the evaluation; his impulsivity, limited
insight, and poor judgment; respondent’s frequent marijuana consumption; his
refusal to receive mental health services; and his overall orientation to the
circumstances leading to DCYF’s involvement in his family’s life. Doctor Parsons
also found “limited evidence to suggest [respondent] has the protective capacity to
place the needs of his son above his own.” Ultimately, Dr. Parsons recommended
in the report that respondent participate in an intensive substance-abuse treatment
program, attend individual psychotherapy with a cognitive/behavioral approach, and
submit to a psychiatric evaluation to determine his need for psychotropic
medications.
Notwithstanding Dr. Parsons’s recommendations and the similar directives
contained in his case plans, respondent did not accomplish the tasks required to
complete the reunification process. Specifically, Mr. Antoine testified that while
respondent completed a substance-abuse assessment, he neglected to complete an
intensive substance abuse treatment program. Mr. Antoine also testified that
respondent did not complete psychotherapy counseling or engage with a psychiatrist
-4-
to assess his need for psychotropic medication prior to April 2019, when DCYF
removed Mr. Antoine from respondent’s case.
Ms. Christina Narducci, the second DCYF caseworker assigned, also
confirmed respondent’s failure to comply with the tasks required for reunification.
She testified that DCYF asked respondent to provide prescription information
related to his medical marijuana, but he failed to do so. She further testified that
respondent’s final case plan required him to participate in substance-abuse
counseling and, along with his other required tasks, he was unsuccessful in doing so.
Regarding visitation with J.B., respondent was dissatisfied with attending
visits at DCYF facilities and expressed a desire to move them to a different location.
Based on respondent’s request, DCYF facilitated supervised visitation at the
Children’s Museum beginning in June 2018. However, respondent refused to
participate in the Families Together parenting program at the Children’s Museum,
explaining that he had had “enough visits at the Museum.” As a result, Families
Together discharged him from the parenting program on November 19, 2018.
The respondent’s failure to comply with the requirements of his case plan
resulted in the Family Court suspending his visitation on one occasion and
eventually issuing a decree ordering him to comply with the recommendations
contained in Dr. Parsons’s report. Notwithstanding the Family Court’s decree,
-5-
respondent failed to adhere to the recommendations, and Ms. Narducci therefore
filed a petition to terminate his parental rights on January 27, 2020.
The respondent also engaged in a pattern of serious and concerning behavior
throughout the duration of his case. Mr. Antoine testified that respondent acted
aggressively and threatened him on numerous occasions related to his visitation with
J.B. On one such occasion, during a meeting between Mr. Antoine and respondent
regarding Dr. Parsons’s report, Mr. Antoine testified, respondent’s attorney had to
physically restrain him during an outburst. The trial record further indicates that
J.B.’s mother received a protective order against respondent based on threats he
made to murder nearly everyone involved in this matter, including a Family Court
justice and two caseworkers.
The respondent testified on his own behalf and called both Analisa Goncalves
and Dr. Cermik of the Providence Center in support of the retention of his parental
rights. The respondent participated in a mental health intake assessment and four
counseling sessions with Ms. Goncalves beginning in September 2019, but
ultimately declined to seek further mental health counseling. The respondent also
attended a one-hour psychiatric evaluation in September 2019 with Dr. Cermik, who
diagnosed him with an adjustment disorder.
After the trial concluded, the trial justice issued a written decision wherein he
stated that he gave great weight to Dr. Parsons’s evaluation and recommendations
-6-
for respondent to complete an intensive substance-abuse treatment program, receive
individual psychotherapy, and attend an evaluation to assess his potential need for
psychotropic medication.
The trial justice found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed
to attend an intensive substance-abuse treatment program; did not engage in any
mental health counseling after an initial evaluation in September 2019; refused to
pursue cognitive/behavioral counseling; and declined to participate in the Families
Together parenting program. The trial justice noted respondent’s failure to provide
a medical marijuana prescription, as well as his threatening, aggressive, and
inappropriate behavior throughout this matter. Significantly, the trial justice found
that respondent’s “tendency to escalate quickly into aggressive behavior and threats
of violence, to dysregulate when frustrated, to refuse to recognize that his marijuana
usage and mental health need any attention beyond medical marijuana presents a
serious risk of harm to his child.” Finally, the trial justice found that J.B. was
thriving in the care of his maternal grandmother and that it was in his best interests
to terminate respondent’s parental rights.
On January 14, 2022, the Family Court entered a decree terminating
respondent’s parental rights pursuant to § 15-7-7(a)(3). The respondent filed a
timely notice of appeal.
-7-
Standard of Review
When reviewing a termination of parental rights on appeal, this Court
examines the record to determine whether the Family Court justice’s findings are
supported by legal and competent evidence. See In re Donnell R-H Jr., 275 A.3d
1139, 1143 (R.I. 2022). This Court affords the Family Court justice’s findings great
weight and will refuse to disturb them unless we conclude that they are clearly wrong
or that the trial justice either overlooked or misconceived material evidence. Id. In
a decision to terminate an individual’s parental rights, the Family Court justice must
determine that these findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at
1143-44.
Discussion
The respondent argues that the trial justice erred in finding that he is not a fit
parent who can care for J.B. immediately. He further argues that, in the absence of
a well-supported finding of unfitness, it is in J.B.’s best interests to be with his father.
We disagree.
Prior to terminating a parent’s rights, the trial justice must find that the parent
is unfit. See In re Pricillion R., 971 A.2d 599, 604 (R.I. 2009). Once the Family
Court justice determines that a parent is unfit, “the best interests of the child
outweigh all other considerations.” See id. (quoting In re Victoria L., 950 A.2d 1168,
1174 (R.I. 2008)).
-8-
Section 15-7-7(a)(3) provides the following:
“(a) The court shall, upon a petition duly filed by a
governmental child placement agency or licensed child
placement agency, or by the birthmother or guardian of a
child born under circumstances referenced in subsection
(a)(2)(viii) of this section, after notice to the parent and a
hearing on the petition, terminate any and all legal rights
of the parent to the child, including the right to notice of
any subsequent adoption proceedings involving the child,
if the court finds as a fact by clear and convincing evidence
that:
“* * *
“(3) The child has been placed in the legal custody or care
of the department of children, youth and families for at
least twelve (12) months, and the parents were offered or
received services to correct the situation that led to the
child being placed; provided, that there is not a substantial
probability that the child will be able to return safely to the
parents’ care within a reasonable period of time
considering the child’s age and the need for a permanent
home[.]”
Our careful examination of the record indicates that J.B. came into the custody
and care of DCYF on February 22, 2018, after respondent contacted the DCYF
hotline. DCYF’s initial investigation prompted serious and immediate misgivings
about placing J.B. with respondent. Specifically, the investigation uncovered several
concerns including respondent’s previous criminal record, his past substance use and
mental health history, and the fact that he was not currently caring for J.B. The
evidence in the record demonstrates that DCYF attempted to address these concerns
throughout the duration of this case by creating three case plans and making referrals
-9-
for services and assistance. However, respondent refused to meaningfully
acknowledge DCYF’s concerns regarding his mental health and potential substance-
use challenges and resisted DCYF’s attempts to assist him in these areas: The record
is replete with evidence demonstrating respondent’s explosive temper and overall
hostility to DCYF’s involvement in this matter. Moreover, Dr. Parsons, the only
mental health provider with an opportunity to substantively observe respondent and
J.B. together, expressed formidable concerns regarding his ability to parent J.B. In
fact, it is clear from the record that respondent never moved beyond supervised
visitation with J.B. Our review of the evidence in the record leaves this Court with
no doubt that competent evidence supports the findings of the trial justice.
After hearing testimony from the witnesses and reviewing the exhibits
presented by the parties, the trial justice thoroughly outlined respondent’s failure to
meaningfully engage with the directives of his case plans. Notwithstanding prior
court orders directing compliance with DCYF and Dr. Parsons’s recommendations,
the trial justice found that respondent failed to participate in the Families Together
parenting program; refused to attend a substance-abuse treatment program; and
failed to engage in any mental health counseling. We have held on several prior
occasions that a parent’s lack of interest in her or his child exemplified by an
unwillingness to cooperate with DCYF services can serve as a sufficient basis for
- 10 -
the Family Court to make a finding of unfitness. See In re James H., 181 A.3d 19,
26-27 (R.I. 2018).
Nevertheless, respondent maintains that he is justified in refusing to follow
the recommendations mandated by the Family Court. Specifically, respondent
argues that we should excuse his failure to follow the Family Court’s directives
because he does not have mental health or substance-use concerns that would
prevent him from successfully parenting J.B. With respect to his substance use,
respondent asserts that the trial justice should not have faulted him for failing to
produce a marijuana prescription because doctors allegedly cannot do so in Rhode
Island 3 and further, that the trial justice should not have relied on his drug screens
without expert testimony. Regarding his mental health and behavioral history,
3
More specifically, respondent asserts that the federal government’s treatment of
marijuana as a controlled substance prevents doctors from “prescribing” it to patients
in Rhode Island. Therefore, he argues, the trial justice’s decision erroneously faulted
him for failing to produce a medical marijuana prescription. Before this Court,
respondent’s counsel noted that trial counsel attempted to elicit information
regarding this alleged impossibility while cross-examining Ms. Narducci. During
this exchange with Ms. Narducci, the trial justice directed respondent’s counsel to
address this issue in a post-trial memorandum. Our review of the record reveals that
respondent did not do so. Further, it appears that respondent himself testified that a
doctor prescribed him medical marijuana, and Ms. Narducci also testified that DCYF
sought background information related to his prescription in an effort to determine
the validity of his medical marijuana card and the underlying health concern leading
to its issuance. Based on respondent’s refusal to provide DCYF with additional
information surrounding his medical marijuana card, this Court is unable to conclude
that the trial justice erred in finding that respondent failed to produce his prescription
for medical marijuana.
- 11 -
respondent argues that the medical evidence presented in this case does not support
a finding that he has serious mental health concerns. Similarly, he argues that the
trial justice’s findings overexaggerated his inability to control his emotions and that
the trial justice should not have relied on his history of violence to support the finding
of unfitness.
The respondent’s arguments, however, overlook the multifaceted and wide-
ranging concerns identified in the trial justice’s decision supporting the termination
of his parental rights. While this Court acknowledges respondent’s objection to the
trial justice’s characterization of his mental health and substance-use concerns, it is
undisputed that respondent failed to carry out the required directives of his case
plans. Further, respondent has not demonstrated that he meaningfully attempted to
overcome Dr. Parsons’s concerns that he lacks “the protective capacity to place the
needs of his son above his own.” Therefore, we are not persuaded by respondent’s
arguments that the trial justice erred in finding that he is not a fit parent who can care
for J.B. immediately.
This Court recognizes that respondent clearly loves his son. Further, we credit
respondent’s initial attempts to address the goals identified in his case plans.
However, our review of the record compels the conclusion that the trial justice did
not err in determining that J.B. had been placed with DCYF for at least twelve
months, that DCYF offered services to address the reasons for placement in DCYF
- 12 -
custody after February 22, 2018, and that there was not a substantial probability that
he could return to respondent’s care within a reasonable period of time. Therefore,
we conclude that the trial justice did not err in determining that respondent is an unfit
parent pursuant to § 15-7-7(a)(3).
Once DCYF establishes that a respondent is an unfit parent and that it made
reasonable efforts at reunification, the child’s best interests outweigh all other
considerations. In re Donnell R-H Jr., 275 A.3d at 1144. When this Court considers
the best interests of the child, we remain mindful of the monumental impact of
severing the bond between parent and child. Id. at 1145-46. Nevertheless, this
Court’s review of the record reveals that the trial justice’s findings regarding J.B.’s
best interests are supported by legally competent evidence. See id. at 1146. The trial
justice determined that J.B. has lived with his maternal grandmother for several years
and has formed a strong bond in her household. Our prior cases acknowledge a
child’s entitlement to permanency and the unfairness of waiting for a respondent
parent for an indeterminate period of time. See id. (citing In re Eric K., 756 A.2d
769, 772 (R.I. 2000)). Based on the stability and longstanding nature of J.B.’s
current placement, this Court agrees that it is in J.B.’s best interests to terminate the
respondent’s parental rights.
This Court acknowledges the respondent’s connection with his son. However,
our conclusion regarding the finding of his unfitness shifts our focus away from the
- 13 -
parent and toward the child. In re Donnell R-H Jr., 275 A.3d at 1146. Accordingly,
we discern no error in the trial justice’s finding that termination of the respondent’s
parental rights is in J.B.’s best interests.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, we affirm the decree appealed from and remand the
record in this matter to the Family Court.
Justice Lynch Prata did not participate.
- 14 -
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
Licht Judicial Complex
250 Benefit Street
Providence, RI 02903
OPINION COVER SHEET
Title of Case In re J.B.
No. 2022-23-Appeal.
Case Number
(KJ 20-578)
Date Opinion Filed April 27, 2023
Justices Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, and Long, JJ.
Written By Associate Justice Melissa A. Long
Source of Appeal Providence County Family Court
Judicial Officer from Lower Court Chief Judge Michael B. Forte
For Petitioner:
Alexander B. Terry
Court Appointed Special Advocate
Attorney(s) on Appeal
Dianne L. Leyden
Department of Children, Youth, and Families
For Respondent:
Kara J. Maguire, Esq.
SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)