Volume 153 — Atlantic Reporter, Third Series

The respondent, Joseph K. (respondent), appeals from a Family Court decree finding that he abused and neglected his daughters, Emilee and Jennifer, in violation of G.L. 1956 chapter 1 of title 14. The Family Court justice committed the children to the care, custody, and control of the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF). On appeal, the respondent raised numerous arguments, including claims that the Family Court justice committed evidentiary errors, overlooked or misconceived material evidence, and erred in holding that DCYF had proven by clear and convincing evidence that both Jennifer and Emilee had been abused and neglected. The Supreme Court held that the Family Court justice did not commit evidentiary errors or overlook or misconceive material evidence in making her decision. Additionally, the Supreme Court concluded that competent evidence existed in the record to support the Family Court justice's findings of abuse and neglect. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Family Court.

The respondent, Kai Jackson, appealed from a decree of the Family Court terminating his parental rights with respect to his two minor sons, Kyeshon and Jarell. On appeal, he contended that the trial justice erred in finding (1) that he is unfit as a parent (2) that he had the financial ability to provide proper care, maintenance and support during his incarceration and (3) that termination of his parental rights would serve the best interests of the children. The Supreme Court held that the Family Court justice did not err in terminating the respondent's parental rights. Preliminarily, the Court was satisfied that the respondent's first contention on appeal had been waived. The Court further held that the trial justice's finding of abandonment by clear and convincing evidence was supported by ample evidence that the respondent had not contacted Kyeshon and Jarell for a period in excess of the six-month statutory period referenced in G.L. 1956 § 15-7-7(a)(4). The Court noted that the respondent's incarceration during the majority of the children's lives did not excuse his lack of effort to make contact with them. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the decree of the Family Court.

This dispute generated two separate appeals. The first was the appeal of the prevailing plaintiffs, Louis Paolino and Marie Issa, from adverse rulings made by the trial justice in favor of the defendants, Joseph I. Ferreira, LKQ Corporation, the Joseph I. Ferreira Trust, and J.F. Realty, LLC. The second was the appeal of Attorney Brian Wagner, who appealed sanctions that were imposed against him by the trial justice. In the first appeal, the plaintiffs argued that the trial justice erred when she (1) failed to order injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs (2) refused to allow the plaintiffs to amend their pleadings to conform to the trial evidence regarding a punitive damages claim against the defendant, J.F. Realty, LLC (3) did not permit the plaintiffs' expert to testify that storm water runoff from the defendants' property caused the seepage of oil along a man-made ditch located on the plaintiffs' property and (4) failed to grant a new trial based upon the plaintiffs' newly discovered evidence. In the second appeal, Attorney Wagner contended that the Superior Court's decision to impose sanctions was based on an erroneous assessment of the facts and an erroneous application of the law to those facts. Furthermore, he argued that, even if sanctions were warranted under the facts and law, the sanction imposed was not appropriate to the facts and circumstances of this case, was excessive when compared to previous decisions regarding Rule 11 of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, and did not reflect the reasonable expenses incurred by the defendants' counsel in responding to the allegedly misleading statement. In the first appeal, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice did not err when she declined to order injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs. The Court concluded that the trial justice did not misapply the law, misconceive or overlook material evidence, nor make factual findings that were clearly wrong, and thereby, did not stray beyond the broad discretion she was afforded. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court held that the trial justice impermissibly limited the testimony of the plaintiffs' expert and ordered a new trial on all issues, excluding the issue of injunctive relief. In the second appeal, the Supreme Court held that the facts did not support the imposition of sanctions, reasoning that Attorney Wagner's interpretation of the jury's findings was not interposed for an improper purpose. The Court concluded that the trial justice exceeded the bounds of discretion afforded to her. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, and vacated in part, the judgment of the Superior Court. The Court remanded for a new trial on all issues, with the exception of the prayer for injunctive relief.