Opinion ID: 2362970
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Accept Responsibility

Text: We detect neither clear error nor misconception of material evidence in the trial justice's decision to terminate respondent's parental rights. Indeed, the foremost allegation of error that respondent pressed on appeal is undercut by the very case he cites to bolster his argument. The respondent correctly cites In re Kelly S., 715 A.2d 1283, 1287 (R.I.1998), for the proposition that past actions alone are not sufficient to brand a parent unfit for life. However, much like respondent, the mother seeking custody of her youngest child in Kelly S. never accepted responsibility or showed remorse for her previous abusive behavior toward her other children. Id. at 1288. This Court emphasized that her continued failure to accept responsibility for her prior conduct was a vital impediment id., to her efforts to regain custody of her daughter, and agreed with the trial justice's conclusion in that case that as long as [mother] does not recognize her actions and acknowledge her responsibility for what occurred to her other [children], Kelly would be at serious risk of suffering similar victimization   . Id. In respondent's case, the trial justice paraphrased this very language in laying out the reasons for her decision to terminate his parental rights. The evidence adduced at trial supports the trial justice's findings that respondent has failed to take any responsibility whatsoever for the horrific abuse inflicted upon his son, but rather has remained steadfast in his denial of ever abusing his son or any other child. This Court's precedent abundantly supports the trial justice's determination that the combination of his past conduct, his unwillingness or inability to acknowledge his responsibility, and his failure to address his issues of anger in any meaningful way was sufficient to warrant the termination of his parental rights. Id.; see also In re Jared S., 787 A.2d 1225, 1227 (R.I.2002).