Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 04-27-2022
Case Style:
Case Number: 2021-193
Judge: Long
Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island (Providence County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Pat Dowling
Defendant's Attorney: Benjamin Copple
Description: Providence, Rhode Island family law attorney represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant seeking a declaratory judgment.
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.
ML was placed in DCY F 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
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.
Outcome: For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the order
of the Family Court.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: