Opinion ID: 2074534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Pettinato Factors [3]

Text: Ms. Williams's second argument on appeal is that the hearing justice abused his discretion in determining that it was in the best interests of Dakota to reside with Mr. Parker. Ms. Williams contends that the hearing justice misinterpreted the facts in this case and was clearly wrong in making the placement determination. Specifically, Ms. Williams contends that the hearing justice misapplied the factors that the Family Court must weigh in determining the best interests of the child. As we have stated, [f]ew principles are more firmly established in the law    than that in awarding custody, placement, and visitation rights, the `paramount consideration' is the best interests of the child. Dupre v. Dupre, 857 A.2d 242, 251-52 (R.I.2004) (quoting Africano v. Castelli, 837 A.2d 721, 728 (R.I.2003)). In Pettinato, 582 A.2d at 913-14, this Court established a list of nonexclusive factors that must be weighed in determining where the best interests of the child lie in a particular case. See also Sammataro v. Sammataro, 620 A.2d 1253, 1254 (R.I. 1993). The following are the factors that this Court set forth in Pettinato: 1. The wishes of the child's parent or parents regarding the child's custody. 2. The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference. 3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parent or parents, the child's siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest. 4. The child's adjustment to the child's home, school, and community. 5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved. 6. The stability of the child's home environment. 7. The moral fitness of the child's parents. 8. The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate a close and continuous parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent. Pettinato, 582 A.2d at 913-14. The best interests of a child in a particular case should not be determined by focusing exclusively on any one of these factors; instead, it is incumbent upon the hearing justice to consider a combination of and an interaction among all the relevant factors that affect the child's best interest. Id. at 914; see also Sammataro, 620 A.2d at 1254. On appeal, we will not disturb a hearing justice's decision regarding placement of a child unless there has been an abuse of discretion. Keenan v. Somberg, 792 A.2d 47, 49 (R.I.2002) (The determination of the best interests of the child rests within the sound discretion of the trial justice based on all the facts presented and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.); see also Sammataro, 620 A.2d at 1254; Pettinato, 582 A.2d at 914. We will disturb the findings of fact made by a Family Court justice only if the appellant demonstrates that such findings are clearly wrong or that the trial justice overlooked or misconceived evidence relevant to the issues decided. D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio, 738 A.2d 1081, 1083 (R.I.1999). Our careful review of the record in the present case reveals that the hearing justice weighed all of the factors set forth by this Court in Pettinato in determining that it was in the best interests of Dakota to reside with Mr. Parker. In his written decision, the hearing justice made explicit findings of fact with regard to each of the Pettinato factors. By way of example, we note that the hearing justice made the following factual findingseach of which weighs, in varying degrees, in favor of awarding physical placement of Dakota to Mr. Parker: (1) that Ms. Williams had a reduced level of communication with Mr. Parker and had failed to keep Mr. Parker advised of medical and school issues, while Mr. Parker had always had good lines of communication with [Ms. Williams] and [had] always kept her advised as to all matters involving the child; (2) that Mr. Parker had always maintained a relationship, not only with his own son Dakota, but also with Ms. Williams's son from a previous relationship, and had always made sure that Dakota visited with his half-brother; (3) that Dakota always had a good relationship with his father; (4) that, although there was no indication that Mr. Parker had any emotional or physical health issues, Ms. Williams was undergoing counseling for alcoholism and continued to smoke marijuana; (5) that Dakota, who is asthmatic, was exposed to smoking by Ms. Williams's boyfriend, who smoked in the apartment where Dakota resided with his mother; (6) that Ms. Williams chose her boyfriend over Dakota when she left the residence that she shared with Mr. Parker in October of 2002 and rarely saw Dakota thereafter; (7) that Mr. Parker's home environment was stable, while Ms. Williams's home environment was less stable; (8) that Mr. Parker had always been responsible regarding his care for Dakota; (9) that Ms. Williams's boyfriend, with whom she lived, had a negative relationship with Mr. Parker and did whatever is in his power to undermine the relationship between [Mr. Parker] and Dakota; and (10) that Ms. Williams had never been willing or able to facilitate a close and continuous parent/child relationship between Dakota and [Mr. Parker] since the child came to live with [her] on September 12, 2003. After reviewing the record, we conclude that the hearing justice appropriately applied the factors set forth in Pettinato in determining the best interests of Dakota. Our review of the record also discloses that the hearing justice did not overlook or misconceive any relevant evidence in making his placement determination. Accordingly, it is our conclusion that the hearing justice did not abuse his discretion in deciding to award physical placement of Dakota to Mr. Parker.