In re Manuel P.

Decision Date17 June 2021
Docket NumberPTI 16-90,PTI 16-93,No. 2019-454-Appeal.,PTI 16-92,No. 2019-452-Appeal.,No. 2019-455-Appeal.,PTI 16-91,No. 2019-453-Appeal.,2019-452-Appeal.,2019-453-Appeal.,2019-454-Appeal.,2019-455-Appeal.
Citation252 A.3d 1211
Parties IN RE MANUEL P. In re Angel P. In re Isaiah M. In re Victoria M.
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court

Benjamin Copple, Department of Children, Youth and Families, Shilpa Naik, Court Appointed Special Advocate, for Petitioner

Kara Hoopis Manosh, Esq., for Respondent

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

Justice Lynch Prata, for the Court.

The respondent mother, Esmeralda M.,1 appeals a Family Court decree, entered on September 16, 2019, terminating her parental rights to her four minor children, Manuel P., Angel P., Isaiah M., and Victoria M. (collectively the children), pursuant to G.L. 1956 §§ 15-7-7(a)(2)(vii) and 15-7-7(a)(3).

These consolidated appeals came before the Supreme Court for oral argument on March 4, 2021, pursuant to an order that directed the parties to show cause why the issues raised in this appeal should not be summarily decided. After hearing counsel's arguments, reviewing the record below, and carefully considering the memoranda submitted by the parties, this Court is satisfied that cause has not been shown. Therefore, we will decide the appeals at this time. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decree of the Family Court.

Facts and Travel

At the time of trial, respondent was the mother of five children, four of whom are the subject of the current appeal. Manuel was born on October 1, 2006; Angel on May 2, 2008; Isaiah on January 5, 2011; and Victoria on October 25, 2013.2 The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF or the department) became involved with this family on March 28, 2014, while respondent was hospitalized at Fatima Hospital.3 On April 29, 2014, DCYF filed ex parte neglect petitions against respondent in order to remove all four of her children. Angel, Isaiah, and Victoria were placed with respondent's mother. Manuel was placed with a foster family.4

Four service plans for each child were created by DCYF with regard to respondent over the next two years.5 The first two sets of plans had reunification with mother as the primary goal. However, in the second set of plans, the concurrent plan goal shifted from guardianship to adoption for Manuel, Isaiah, and Victoria.

In March 2015, DCYF filed an emergency motion to remove the three youngest children from the custody of their maternal grandmother after the department learned that she had permitted an unsupervised visit with respondent. The children were placed in foster care. That same month, respondent was hospitalized again, for depression. The respondent told a social worker that she was court-ordered to take injections at that time.6 DCYF reviewed with respondent the court's requirement that she continue her court-ordered mental-health treatment, also coordinating with the Providence Center regarding those services.

The respondent and her family were referred to the Families Together program, provided through the Providence Children's Museum, for supervised visitation and evaluation in April 2015. Also at this time, DCYF again asked that respondent complete a neuropsychological evaluation. While the third set of service plans for the children—made in consultation with respondent—continued to state the goal as reunification, the concurrent plan goal for all four children became adoption.

Progress reviews on respondent's own mental-health services and efforts showed a lack of progress and emphasized the need to complete a neuropsychological evaluation and "engage FULLY in individual conuseling [sic ] and medication management[,]" as well as addressing her own experiences of abuse as a child. The respondent signed the third set of service plans for the three older children on January 4, 2016, but did not sign Victoria's, which listed reunification with the parents or principal caretakers, rather than the mother, as its goal.

In the months that followed, DCYF caseworkers noted respondent's lessening participation in visitation. Kimberly Marino, a DCYF social worker, testified that respondent set up the requested appointment for a neuropsychological evaluation in November 2015, with an agency that did not have an appointment until March 2016. In May 2016, respondent's visits with her children stopped, according to DCYF. The respondent's neuropsychological evaluation was completed on July 18, 2016. Even then, DCYF witnesses testified, respondent's inaccurate responses rendered the evaluation inadequate for the purposes of further service recommendations.

On May 26, 2016, DCYF filed petitions seeking to terminate respondent's parental rights with respect to the children. In its petitions, DCYF alleged two grounds for the requested termination. First, DCYF alleged that the children had been in the legal custody or care of DCYF for at least twelve months, respondent was offered or received services to correct the situation which led to the children's placement, and there was not a substantial probability that they could return safely to respondent's care within a reasonable period of time. See § 15-7-7(a)(3).7 Second, DCYF contended that respondent had exhibited behavior or conduct seriously detrimental to the children, for a duration rendering future care improbable. See § 15-7-7(a)(2)(vii). Nevertheless, DCYF's fourth and final set of service plans, unsigned by respondent, continued to state that the department's goal was reunification.

Trial

A first attempt at consolidated trial proceedings was held before a justice of the Family Court beginning in February 2018, during which respondent attempted to represent herself pro se . The trial justice determined that respondent was not competent to represent herself and that, as the justice later said, "it would be a travesty of justice to continue the matter" with her pro se , so the court "ceased the proceedings" until counsel could be appointed. The record before us contains transcripts for two pretrial hearings that occurred in September and October 2018. At both of these hearings the record reflects the presence of a guardian ad litem whom the Family Court appointed for respondent.

The respondent was absent from the October 29, 2018 pretrial hearing, and her attorney objected to proceeding without her. The matter was continued, and the trial commenced on November 13, 2018. While respondent was present at the first day of trial, she made comments that ranged from disparagement of the witness—for which she was reprimanded—to requesting a bathroom break.

DCYF's first witness was DCYF caseworker Chantele Rotolo, who had been assigned to the family in May 2014. According to Ms. Rotolo, "Mom * * * didn't trust my intentions and didn't want to sign anything[.]" Despite her "attempt[s] to service plan with mom[,]" Ms. Rotolo testified, respondent "didn't want to engage in the collaborative process that is needed for service planning." Ms. Rotolo recalled that respondent was already receiving services from the Providence Center related to mental health, which services were "part of the case planning for mother to achieve reunification[.]"

When trial resumed the next day, November 14, 2018, respondent was present in court at some point, although according to the trial justice she "left the vicinity" before testimony began. Consequently, her attorney objected to going forward without respondent present. However, the trial justice directed the parties to proceed with the next witness's testimony. Ms. Marino, the social caseworker assigned to the family at the time of trial, testified that she was assigned to the children in March 2015. Ms. Marino confirmed that respondent had been "referred to the Providence Center through Mental Health Court" and was also working with Community Care Alliance (CCA) while Manuel received therapy through the foster-care agency.

Ms. Marino testified that respondent's visits with the three younger children were "chaotic" and that visitation was later split up. Ms. Marino also testified that respondent resisted signing releases for services needed for the children and was uncooperative with referrals for services. After respondent was discharged from Families Together in April 2016, visitation occurred at DCYF but respondent "started to either not show up or to show up late[,]" in addition to other concerns, including those related to the chaotic nature of the visits.

The trial continued the following day, November 15, 2018. The respondent was not present in court, and her attorney again objected to going forward without her, reporting that respondent's mother had asserted to him that respondent's mental-health issues and hospitalization were the reasons for her absence. After reviewing the history and travel of the case, the trial justice stated as follows:

"At this time, I am going to order that the matter continue to proceed. If counsel wants to sit down with his client at anytime and go over what questions may arise during these proceedings, if she appears before counsel, then counsel may. Counsel can freely ask for a transcript to share with his client regarding the days that we spent together. * * * It's her fundamental right to have a fair proceeding. With that, comes a privilege of having counsel, but if she won't take advantage of it, this Court is not going to let the children wait. So, we'll proceed."

Thus, DCYF proceeded with its case and called Jane Ahles, a supervisor with DCYF, who testified about respondent's referral to the Families Together program, as well as the multiple service referrals made for the children, including Head Start, early intervention, and physical and occupational therapy for Victoria. According to Ms. Ahles, respondent had not had visitation with her children since May 2016, due to DCYF's successful motion to stop visitation, although respondent would come into her office frequently and make a scene, telling Ms. Ahles in October 2018 that she had been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Lacera v. Department of Children, Youth, and Families
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • 27 Abril 2022
    ...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 st......
  • In re Jae'La G.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 2022
    ...of Review"Natural parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of their children." 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) ). That interest "does not evaporate simply because they have no......
  • In re Domenic B.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • 27 Octubre 2021
    ...not disturb them unless they are clearly wrong or the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence." In re Manuel P. , 252 A.3d 1211, 1218-19 (R.I. 2021) (quoting In re Rylee A. , 233 A.3d 1040, 1049 (R.I. 2020) ).DiscussionOn appeal, respondent maintains that the trial justic......
  • In re Rachelle L-B.
    • United States
    • Rhode Island Supreme Court
    • 27 Mayo 2022
    ...them unless they are clearly wrong or the trial justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence." Id. (quoting In re Manuel P. , 252 A.3d 1211, 1218-19 (R.I. 2021) ).DiscussionOn appeal, respondent maintains that the trial justice erred in finding (1) that respondent was unfit to paren......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT