Opinion ID: 2351653
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Dependency Ruling

Text: The respondent is proceeding pro se on appeal. [Such] litigants are not entitled to greater rights than those represented by counsel. Gray v. Stillman White Co., 522 A.2d 737, 741 (R.I.1987). Still, [o]ur courts have often exhibited leniency and provided assistance to those litigants who have chosen to present their own cases. O'Neil v. State, 814 A.2d 366, 367 (R.I.2002) (mem.). On appeal, respondent argues that my children don't seem to be dependent as the Family Court judge says. We interpret this as a challenge to the Family Court's dependency finding. We consider respondent's claim according to our well-settled standard of review. The Family Court's    findings are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed absent a showing that the trial justice was clearly wrong or that material evidence was overlooked or misconceived. In re Nicole B., 703 A.2d 612, 615 (R.I.1997). We must search the record to determine whether legally competent evidence supports the trial justice's findings. Id. As noted above, G.L. 1956 § 14-1-3(6) defines dependency to include any child who requires the protection and assistance of the court when his or her physical or mental health or welfare is harmed or threatened with harm due to the inability of the parent or guardian    to provide the child with a minimum degree of care or proper supervision because of    [the] illness of a parent   . The state's role in protecting children may properly be preventive of harm as well as remedial. In re Lester, 417 A.2d 877, 881 (R.I.1980). Although the statute does not expressly say so, this Court has interpreted it to include medical care and the basic necessities of life. In re Robert S., 762 A.2d 1199, 1201 (R.I.2000). The determination that a child is abused, neglected, or dependent shall be made upon clear and convincing evidence. Rule 17(b) of the Family Court Rules of Juvenile Proceedings. The court shall clearly state the facts upon which it bases such determination and its reasons therefor. Id. Unless the state can prove by clear and convincing evidence that a child is actually suffering or is likely to suffer physical and/or emotional harm, there is no reason to disturb the basic security of a family relationship. In re Lester, 417 A.2d at 880 (quoting In re Jonathan, 415 A.2d 1036, 1039 (R.I.1980)). Under the facts before us, in reviewing this case under the clearly erroneous standard, we cannot say that the trial justice erred in his dependency determination. The trial justice carefully reviewed the evidence presented at trial, including various evaluations of the children. The evidence in these evaluations included respondent's statements that her children do not need medical care, as well as her statement that the children need only be taught things that are revealed to her according to her understanding of the Bible. [7] The trial justice also noted the reports that the children had no socialization, either with playmates or relatives. The trial justice cited Dr. Asser's examination report discussing signs of neglect, as well as various problems exhibited by each child. Ephraim had language and social delays in development, as well as no dental care or immunizations. Theodora had similar language and social setbacks, no dental care, and no immunizations since at least 1999. She also exhibited emotional neglect. The trial justice also noted respondent's diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, the fact that she was in treatment for it, and that she was consulting with a new doctor. Although the trial justice certainly was aware of respondent's religious beliefs, Logan's beliefs, in and of themselves, played no part in the decision. Rather, the decision rested on, and is fully supported by, evidence that Logan's own overarching medical and/or social service needs rendered her unable to meet her children's basic needs. Based on the evidence reviewed above, this Court will not disturb the trial justice's dependency finding.