Court Opinion

ID: 9753423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:13:58.353787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:36.389595
License: Public Domain

GOLDBERG, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I am of the opinion that a parent’s obligation to support a child is extinguished upon the termination of his or her parental rights, I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority.
As an initial matter, the introduction of this first offender to Rhode Island’s criminal justice system is nothing short of a shocking episode in the jurisprudence of the Family Court. On May 25, 2000, David Fritz (Fritz or defendant) was arraigned on one felony count of failure to pay child support in violation of G.L.1956 § 11-2-1.1. He was a first offender. Bail was set at $40,000 with surety, an amount that is higher than the bail that is imposed for drug dealers, child molesters and thieves. Unable to post surety bail, defendant was remanded to the Adult Correctional Institutions (ACI), where he languished, without counsel, for more than four months. Fritz did not return to court until July, 28, 2000, more than two months after his initial appearance. According to the Family Court file, defendant was remanded to prison, again without the benefit of counsel, “to ensure his court appearance.” On August 24, 2000, three months after his arrest and still without counsel, defendant was re-arraigned, entered a second plea of not guilty and was returned to the ACI based on his continued inability to post this exorbitant surety bail. Counsel finally was appointed, and entered an appearance on September 7, 2000, more than three months after defendant’s arrest and incarceration. The defendant was again remanded to the ACI for lack of bail. Thus, although facing a maximum of five years imprisonment for this felony offense, defendant was not afforded counsel for more than three months and was held in lieu of bail for more than four months. Simply put, this individual, with no prior criminal record, who is presumed innocent, was ignored by the Family Court. It goes without saying that the courts of this state that are vested with felony criminal jurisdiction have concomitant constitutional responsibilities, including compliance with the Bill of Rights all of which are noticeably absent in this case.
Failure to Pay Child Support
Although a warrant for defendant’s arrest for failure to pay child support was issued on December 2, 1997, defendant was not apprehended for more than two years until he was arrested at his home on May 24, 2000. The defendant was gainfully employed and living in an apartment in North Kingstown. A criminal information charging defendant with one count of failure to pay child support in violation of § 11-2-1.1 was filed on August 7, 2000. Included in the information was a statement by defendant’s former wife in which she informed the investigator that defendant’s parental rights previously had been terminated. However, no further investigation was undertaken.
The defendant’s plight was compounded by the court’s failure to provide him with counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We are informed that upon his arrest and incarceration, defendant wrote to the Chief Judge of the Family Court and notified him that his parental rights to his children had been tei’minated in 1994. This communication was referred to the Court’s legal counsel who responded that she was unable to find an order verifying *690the termination and that defendant, therefore, was responsible for the child support. However, aided by counsel, at a hearing on Fritz’s continued incarceration because of lack of bail, the fact that his parental ■ rights had been terminated was “instantly verified” by the clerk through a simple telephone call to the Family Court juvenile office. Upon verification that defendant’s parental rights had been terminated, he was released on $10,000 personal recognizance. The defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the information, asserting that the state failed to present a prima facie case.7
As in every termination case in this state, the decree of termination resulted from a petition, filed by the Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), alleging that the children had been abused by their father. Significantly, in Rhode Island, unlike many jurisdictions, parental rights can be terminated only upon petition of “a governmental child placement agency or licensed child placement agency after notice to the parent and a hearing on the petition * * *.” G.L.1956 § 15-7-7(a). Thus, a “voluntary termination” of parental rights cannot occur at the instance of a recalcitrant parent who wishes to be relieved of his or her child support responsibilities. An individual may not bring a petition to terminate his or her own parental rights unless there is pending a petition for adoption of the child. In re John, 605 A.2d 486, 488-89 (R.I.1992). The record in this case discloses that a complaint alleging abuse of the children was filed against this defendant, and the children were placed in the custody of DCYF with physical placement with the mother. At some later point, defendant, with the assistance of counsel, elected not to contest the petition and voluntarily consented to DCYF’s termination petition. A hearing was held by a justice of the Family Court during which defendant testified that he was freely and voluntarily consenting to the termination of his parental rights. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing justice declared that defendant’s parental rights permanently were terminated and appointed DCYF as guardian of the children. The right of the father to give or withhold consent to their adoption and to be given notice of an adoption also was extinguished. I am satisfied that this proceeding resulted in the complete severance of the parent-child relationship and that the rights of both defendant and the children were considered and finally determined. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that defendant’s obligation to continue to support these children ended when he relinquished his parental rights.
In his written decision dismissing the criminal information, the Family Court hearing justice found that defendant had relinquished “his right to parent his children and all that is encompassed with that *691responsibility, as well as his right to give or withhold consent to then.' adoption.” Pursuant to G.L.1956 § 15-7.2-2, it is “the policy of this state that adoption is based upon the legal termination of parental rights and responsibilities of birth parents and the creation of the legal relationship of parents and child between an adoptee and the adoptive parents.” He concluded that an adoption cannot occur until there has been a termination of the natural parent’s rights and responsibilities to the child. Thus, I believe that the termination of parental rights also extinguishes one’s parental responsibilities, including the responsibility to support the children; otherwise the children are not available for adoption and the parent-child relationship, at least concerning maintenance and support, has not been severed. I am of the opinion that the decision of the majority creates an anomalous situation in which the parental relationship is not terminated by decree of the Family Court and a parent who is obliged to continue to support a child has a due process right to notice of the child’s adoption so that his or her support obligations can be discontinued. Further, in cases such as the one before us, in which the children remain with their mother, the amount of support due from each parent changes from time to time. Since the financial resources of both parents must be considered in fixing the amount of child support, a parent has the right to petition the Family Court for a modification of child support based upon a change in circumstances. These proceedings necessarily will involve further entanglements between the parties, a situation I suggest that is not in the best interests of the children. In my opinion, this is an absurd result that frustrates the intent of the Legislature as clearly expressed in § 15-7-7(a) that the termination of parental rights includes the termination of “any and all legal rights of the parent to the child, including the right to notice of any subsequent adoption proceedings involving the child * * (Emphases added.) The record discloses that DCYF does not seek child support from parents whose children have been placed in its custody. Indeed, it was acknowledged that the state does not seek support from parents whose children are in state custody and routinely vacates any arrearages that have accrued from the date the termination petition was filed. I agree that this policy comports with the best interests of the child.
Because adoption and the termination of parental rights were unknown to the common law, this entire body of law is statutory. It is axiomatic that statutes in derogation of the common law are strictly construed. A statute that provides for the termination of parental rights has an impact upon a protected liberty interest of the parent to the child and has significant consequences to the parent who is deprived of the right to associate with his or her own child. In re John, 605 A.2d at 488. Accordingly, these statutes are strictly construed, and this Court will not read into the statute conditions that are not expressly set forth therein. Id, With respect to terminations pursuant to § 15-7-6, “the primary inquiry undertaken by the court is whether the surrender of parental rights is voluntary and in the best interests of the child * * In re Kyle S., 692 A.2d 329, 332 (R.I.1997). However, whether the termination of parental rights is effectuated pursuant to §§ 15-7-5, 15-7-6 or 15-7-7, the Legislative intent is the same, “to provide children who are in need with permanent and safe placement.” In re Kyle S., 692 A.2d at 332. In my opinion, if the Legislature intended to require a parent to support his or her children after a decree permanently terminating the parent-child relationship, it would have done so in clear *692and unequivocal language. This Court has recognized the salient purpose of § 15-7-6 is to provide for the voluntary termination of parental rights without regard to the question of parental unfitness. We have declined to construe chapter 7 of title 15 in such a way as to discourage the voluntary termination of parental rights. See In re Kyle S., 692 A.2d at 333 (previous voluntary termination of parental rights may not serve as the basis of a later involuntary termination petition). In my opinion, the construction placed upon this chapter by the majority, holding that a parent who voluntarily relinquishes his or her rights to a child still is obliged to support that child, will have the unwarranted effect of discouraging voluntary terminations that may otherwise be in a child’s best interests.
It should be emphasized that in this case we have not been asked to address the rights of the children. The best interests of the children were specifically addressed and decided by the Family Court hearing justice who, based on a petition filed by a state child protective agency, ordered the termination of defendant’s rights to his children. The rights of the children to live in a safe and nurturing environment without their father’s influence and participation were judicially and finally adjudicated in 1994. I disagree with the majority that the children have any residual rights with respect to their father, save for the right to inherit. The General Assembly has provided that the only right a child possesses after the termination of the parent-child relationship is the right to inherit from his or her natural parents pursuant to § 15-7-17. I suggest that if the General Assembly wanted to afford these children any other rights, including the right to support, it would have expressly done so, particularly since termination decrees cannot arise from divorce proceedings.
An overwhelming majority of states have recognized that a parent’s duty to support a child is extinguished by operation of law upon the termination of his or her parental rights. This concept rests upon the fairly uniform belief that “[a] person who has relinquished parental rights through adoption, a voluntary termination of parental rights or an involuntary severance of parental rights is no longer a parent.” State ex rel. Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services v. Clear, 248 Kan. 109, 804 P.2d 961, 967 (1991). Thus, “[t]he parent whose rights have been [permanently] severed is relieved of all duties and obligations to the child.” Id. Indeed, I am hard-pressed to find a single jurisdiction that approaches the position taken by the majority today. I believe that in the absence of explicit legislation to the contrary, Rhode Island should join the majority of states that recognize, as did the Family Court hearing justice, that parental responsibilities flow from the existence of parental rights and a termination decree results in the dissolution of the parent-child relationship and all that it entails.
I also reject, as legally incorrect, the fear expressed by the majority that recalcitrant parents would line up to voluntarily terminate their rights simply to avoid child support. First, parents cannot get in line without an invitation from the state. As noted, in this jurisdiction, only a child protection agency such as DCYF can petition for the termination of a parent’s rights, whether the petition is voluntary or involuntary. Second, the overarching issue to be decided by the Family Court hearing justice is what is in the child’s best interests. Significantly, there has been no suggestion that Fritz agreed to the termination of his parental rights to avoid child support. These proceedings were initiated by .an abuse complaint prosecuted by DCYF.
*693Contrary to the fears expressed by the majority, numerous states that have addressed this question simply have refused to allow a termination based on the desire of a parent to escape his or her child support responsibilities. Indeed, some states, including the State of Connecticut, permit a parent to petition for the termination of his or her parental rights even in the absence of a pending adoption. However, no state permits a termination simply to avoid child support obligations. Because it is universally recognized that a termination extinguishes the parent’s obligation to support the child, courts closely examine these petitions with a view toward the child’s best interests. In re Bruce R., 234 Conn. 194, 662 A.2d 107, 112 (1995). In jurisdictions that allow a parent to petition for the voluntarily termination of his or her parental rights, the desire to avoid support responsibilities is an insufficient ground for granting a petition; the test is always the best interests of the child. See, e.g., Ex parte Brooks, 513 So.2d 614, 616 (Ala.1987) (termination of parental rights statutes are not “means for a parent to avoid his obligation to support his child”); In re K.L.S., 180 Ga.App. 688, 350 S.E.2d 50, 51 (1986) (“statutory authority of the juvenile court to entertain [voluntary] petitions to terminate parental rights does not extend to petitions by parents seeking judicial imprimatur” to abandon their parental responsibilities); In re Interest of D.W.K, 365 N.W.2d 32, 35 (Iowa 1985) (father’s termination petition denied where termination would “ultimately * * * open a hatch for a parent to escape his or her duty to support a child”); In re Welfare of Alle, 304 Minn. 254, 230 N.W.2d 574, 577 (1975) (children have a right to look to their legal father for support and father’s rights may not be terminated to avoid support); In re Interest of R.A.S., 826 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Mo.Ct.App.1992) (consensual termination petition denied where evidence showed that father sought to avoid his support obligation); R.H. v. M.K., 254 N.J.Super. 480, 603 A.2d 995, 997 (Ch.Div.1991) (parent may not voluntarily surrender his or her parental rights other than in adoption contest); Commonwealth Department of Public Welfare ex rel. Hager v. Woolf, 276 Pa.Super. 433, 419 A.2d 535, 538 (1980) (parent may not seek to avoid support obligation by the “mere filing of a petition to terminate parental rights”); In re Interest of A.B., 151 Wis.2d 312, 444 N.W.2d 415, 419 (1989) (support obligation of the father to be considered as one of the considerations in determining the best interests of the child in cases of consensual termination). Thus, in my opinion, it is absurd to suggest that a trial court, upon the petition of a state agency, ever will terminate a parent’s rights simply to relieve the parent of his or her child support responsibilities. An overwhelming number of jurisdictions have recognized that the termination of parental rights also extinguishes the obligation to support the child. Even in states that permit a parent to seek termination, courts conduct a searching inquiry into the best interests of the child and deny a request for voluntary termination in cases in which a parent seeks to avoid child support; “no parent may blithely walk away from his or her parental responsibilities.” In re Interest of A.B., 444 N.W.2d at 419. That is certainly not what happened here.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein, I dissent from the decision of the majority and would uphold the decision of the hearing justice.

. Although defendant moved to dismiss the information pursuant to G.L.1956 § 12-12-1.7, failure to set forth a prima facie case, the majority has remanded this case to the Family Court “for a hearing to ascertain whether the action against defendant represented a selective prosecution of [defendant]."” This is procedurally and substantively incorrect; these issues were not raised before the hearing justice and are not appropriately before this Court. Further, the constitutional issue of selective prosecution is not cognizable under § 12-12-1.7. See State v. Jenison, 442 A.2d 866, 875 (R.I.1982) (the duty of hearing justice in passing on a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to § 12-12-1.7 is “to examine the information and the attached exhibits to determine ‘whether there exists probable cause to believe that the offense charged ha[d] been committed and that [the] defendant [had] committed it’ "). In ruling on a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, a hearing justice is not permitted to pass upon any constitutional challenges set forth by the defendant.