Volume 181 — Atlantic Reporter, Third Series

The respondent mother, Crystal M., appealed from a decree of the Family Court terminating her parental rights with respect to three of her children. She argued that the trial justice: (1) erred in admitting into evidence a particular expert report (2) erred in allowing the respondent to testify as to her prior arrest without requiring DCYF to adduce evidence that the arrest resulted in a conviction and (3) erred by overlooking the respondent's compliance with DCYF's case plans and recommendations. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial justice did not err in admitting the expert report in question that any error as to the admission of testimony about respondent's arrest was harmless because the trial justice did not rely on that testimony in her decision and that the trial justice did not overlook the respondent's minimal level of compliance with DCYF services. The Court further held that, based on the testimony adduced at trial, there was an ample evidentiary basis for the trial justice's finding that the respondent was unfit to parent her children and that, therefore, the trial justice did not err when she terminated respondent's parental rights. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the Family Court decree terminating the respondent's parental rights.

Before the Court is yet another chapter in the over-seventeen-year dispute between Newport's renowned feuding neighbors, Carol C. Ballard and A.L. Ballard against SVF Foundation and its predecessor owner, the Dorrance H. Hamilton Trust, regarding the former "Edgehill property" located in Newport, Rhode Island. In 2015, on the eve of trial, the Superior Court entered various summary judgments in favor of the Foundation in the consolidated cases. The Ballards timely appealed. The Ballards narrowed their appeal to the judgments concerning the Edgehill property's sewer system and a driveway easement. In addition, the Ballards appealed the denial of their Rule 11 motion for sanctions against the attorney for the Foundation. The Ballards contended that the trial justice abused his discretion when he denied sanctions. The Court affirmed the trial justice's rulings in all aspects.

The plaintiff, Frances Ahearn, is before the Supreme Court on appeal from the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the City of Providence. The plaintiff tripped and fell on an oversized crack on a sidewalk in Providence and as a result, suffered an injury to her elbow. The plaintiff filed a notice of claim with the city pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 45-15-9, stating that she fell on Charles Street, approximately 100 feet from the Route 95 North Exit 23 off ramp. Upon investigation by the city, it was determined that the named location was geographically impossible, and that Route 95 North Exit 23 actually exits onto Orms Street. Nearly two years later, the plaintiff amended her complaint, changing the location of her fall to the Route 95 South Exit 23 off ramp. At a hearing, the trial justice granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant based on the plaintiff's defective notice. The Supreme Court addressed the arguments of both parties and concluded that the trial justice was correct in granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant because the plaintiff fixed a nonexistent location in her original notice, and thus did not comply with the condition precedent set forth in § 45-15-9(a). Furthermore, the plaintiff's amended complaint was not curative because it was filed outside of the sixty-day time frame to file or amend a notice of claim under § 45-15-9(a). Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.