Court Opinion

ID: 9759388
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 00:14:51.380731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:04:06.618086
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Joslin,
dissenting. This case raises the recurring problem of a father whose excess of income over his reasonable expenses is insufficient to meet the reasonable needs of his children. If the children’s needs are to be satisfied, the father must give up something he needs. If the father is allowed to retain all that he requires, however, the children must go wanting. Yet a solution must be found, and it necessarily results in hardship either to the children or to the father, or perhaps to both. Under our rule, a trial justice, in his search for that solution, cannot be guided solely by either the needs and welfare of the children or the capacity of the father to pay. Instead, he must attempt to balance the children’s need and the father’s capacity to pay. See Peirson v. Peirson, 119 R.I. 701, 704, 382 A.2d 823, 824 (1978); Spaziano v. Spaziano, 94 R.I. 258, 261, 179 A.2d 849, 851 (1962); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 79 R.I. 163, 167-68, 85 A.2d 565, 567 (1952). That factual determination is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it was “based upon an oversight or misconception of material *5evidence on a controlling issue, or was otherwise clearly wrong.” Brown v. Brown, 114 R.I. 117, 120, 329 A.2d 200, 201-02 (1974); Rock v. Rock, 107 R.I. 172, 178, 265 A.2d 640, 644 (1970); Ricciardi v. Ricciardi, 91 R.I. 455, 458, 164 A.2d 855, 857 (1960).
Ferdinand A. Bruno, for plaintiff.
Louis B. Abilheira, Salvatore L. Romano, Jr., for defendant.
In this case, the trial justice concluded that the unmet needs of the children took priority over allowing the father to maintain his present standard of living. To satisfy those needs, however, did not require an award of $50 a week. There is no evidence in the record that supports an award in that amount. Indeed, the children’s mother testified that they required only $40 a week. Evidence to support any greater amount is totally lacking.
I agree with the majority, therefore, that an award of $50 a week cannot be allowed to stand. See DiNofrio v. DiNofrio, 85 R.I. 21, 29, 125 A.2d 194, 199 (1956). That the trial justice erred in fixing the amount of the award, however, does not necessarily call for a complete reversal. He was required to exercise his discretion concerning who should suffer hardship — the father or the children — and he opted to place the burden upon the father. Although he imposed a larger burden than the evidence warrants, there is evidence that will support an award of $40 a week for the children’s support. I would therefore reduce the award only to that amount rather than to the $38 awarded by the majority.
My disagreement with the majority is limited to the amount of the weekly award. I agree with them that an award of counsel fees is not justified on this record.