Opinion ID: 1476860
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dismissal of Abuse Petition

Text: DCYF argues that the trial justice erred in dismissing the abuse petition after considering the parents' new evidence. DCYF contends that the evidence does not support Dr. Raggio's diagnosis of Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) or her hypothesis that EDS contributed to the child's nineteen fractures. Consequently, DCYF contends that the trial justice erred in reversing his earlier determination that the conduct of the parents to the child was of a cruel and abusive nature and that the parents are unfit at this time by reason of conduct or conditions seriously detrimental to the child, which resulted in cruel and abusive conduct to the child. In reviewing an appeal from a decree of the Family Court, we examine the record to determine whether legally competent evidence exists in it to support findings made by the trial justice. In re Robert S., 762 A.2d 1199, 1200 (R.I.2000). These 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). After our review of the record, we are satisfied that the trial justice was acting within his discretionary authority in reversing his earlier finding of abuse. Of significant importance in this case is the fact that the trial justice, in reaching his initial finding of abuse, found no direct evidence of abuse on the part of the parents. In his initial written decision, the trial justice explicitly stated that there was no direct evidence that the alleged child abuse was committed by the parents  acknowledged to be the principal caretakers of this child since birth. The trial justice noted that the lab tests and the opinions of DCYF's experts established that the child did not suffer from a bone disease, metabolic disorder, genetic disorder, or other medical condition that would account for the nineteen fractures. The trial justice found absolutely no medical evidence to support the opinion of the parents' expert witness, Dr. Colin Paterson, that the child suffered from temporary brittle bone disease. Instead, the trial justice drew a permissible inference that the parents have inflicted or allowed to be inflicted upon the child, physical injury and that their conduct was of a cruel and abusive nature. The trial justice couched his findings, however, by recognizing that this case involved a difficult area of medical science and prophesized that it is possible that in five years or so, any difficulties may be resolved to the satisfaction of the entire scientific-medical community. Four years later, the testimony of Dr. Raggio convinced the trial justice that the child's fractures were not caused by abuse, but rather, were caused by a medical condition that led to the fractures in the course of normal handling and everyday activities. After reviewing the extensive record and voluminous transcripts, we conclude that legally competent evidence exists to support the findings of the trial justice. Doctor Raggio testified that, in her opinion, based upon reasonable medical certainty, Mackenzie suffered from an Ehlers-Danlos type syndrome and combined with intrauterine conditions, namely a short umbilical cord and a fibroid tumor that restricted her movement before she was born, she had abnormal bone, which resulted in her suffering fractures in the course of normal handling. Doctor Raggio based her conclusion that the child had this Ehlers-Danlos type syndrome on a full orthopedic examination of the child, which revealed that the child had loose ligaments and a grayish sclera, the medical history of the child's mother, a review of medical literature, and the fact that the child was diagnosed with tenosynovitis in November 2003. Moreover, Dr. Raggio testified that many of the child's fractures were symmetrical and that with abnormal bone it's easy to get that kind of fracture. This testimony about the significance of the symmetrical nature of the fractures was bolstered by the testimony of Dr. Patricia Solga, DCYF's expert witness, who testified that symmetrical fractures are very likely to be seen when bones are abnormal. Consequently, given the lack of direct evidence that the parents abused the child, combined with the expert medical testimony explaining the child's condition, we discern no error on the part of the trial justice in denying and dismissing the abuse petition filed by DCYF for failing to sustain its burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence. We have no need to address the parties' arguments about the trial justice's denial of the petition for termination of parental rights. [3] Before permanently sever[ing] the rights of a parent in his or her natural children, the state must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit. In re Russell S., 763 A.2d 648, 649 (R.I.2000) (quoting In re Nicole B., 703 A.2d 612, 615 (R.I.1997)); see also § 15-7-7; In re Kyle S., 692 A.2d 329, 333 (R.I.1997) (noting that a judicial finding of parental unfitness is a condition precedent to the involuntary termination of parental rights).