Opinion ID: 2423690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dependency and Neglect

Text: In passing on allegations of dependency and neglect, the Family Court is required to make its findings by clear and convincing evidence, in accordance with Rule 17(b) of the Family Court Rules of Juvenile Proceedings. The clear and convincing standard of proof requires the trial justice to have a clear conviction without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue. In re Adner G., 925 A.2d 951, 957 (R.I.2007) (quoting Parker v. Parker, 103 R.I. 435, 442, 238 A.2d 57, 61 (1968)). This Court's standard of review requires that we examine the record to determine whether legally competent evidence exists in it to support findings made by the trial justice. Id. (quoting In re Mackenzie C., 877 A.2d 674, 685 (R.I.2005)). Further, the trial justice's findings are entitled to great weight and will not be reversed on appeal unless the justice overlooked or misconceived material evidence, or was otherwise clearly wrong. In re Isabella C., 852 A.2d 550, 555 (R.I.2004) (citing In re Robert S., 840 A.2d 1146, 1149 (R.I. 2004)). In accordance with this deferential standard, it is our function to determine whether legally competent evidence exists in the record before us to support the finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the children were dependent and that respondent neglected his children. See In re Veronica T., 700 A.2d 1366, 1368 (R.I. 1997). The statutory definitions relating to neglected and dependent children include instances where their physical or mental health or welfare is harmed or threatened with harm. Section 14-1-3(6), (8). This Court has held that in passing on allegations of dependency or neglect, it is incumbent upon the trial justice to set forth the facts upon which the finding rests. In re Ephraim L., 862 A.2d 196, 200 (R.I.2004). Unless the state proves, by clear and convincing evidence, that the 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 Jonathan, 415 A.2d 1036, 1039 (R.I.1980). The respondent contends that he did not neglect his children, that the home was adequately furnished, warm and suitable, and that after the initial petition was filed, there was no evidence of domestic abuse. [4] In a detailed decision, including twenty-four findings of fact, the trial justice set forth her ultimate conclusion that the children were neglected as to him. We are of the opinion that there was legally competent evidence to support her findings that the children were at risk of being harmed, based on lack of parental supervision, substance abuse and domestic violence by and between the parents. Further, although the respondent alleges there was no evidence of domestic violence, the trial justice specifically declared that she did not believe Allen's denials. It is well established that [t]he task of determining the credibility of witnesses is peculiarly the function of the trial justice when sitting without a jury. Parella v. Montalbano, 899 A.2d 1226, 1239 (R.I. 2006) (quoting Hood v. Hawkins, 478 A.2d 181, 184 (R.I.1984)). Therefore, we decline to disturb the trial justice's credibility determinations and, with them, her finding of neglect and dependency.