Court Opinion

ID: 9750806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:33:34.348187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:22.287550
License: Public Domain

Justice GOLDBERG,
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s decision in this case. I write separately, however, because the result, as well as the Court’s reasoning in reaching this result, stands in sharp contrast to In re Steven D., 23 A.3d 1138 (R.I.2011) — the Court’s last pronouncement on the question of the quantum of reasonable efforts at reunification required of the state to sustain a decree ordering the termination of parental rights.
In In re Steven D., a majority of this Court vacated a decree terminating the parental rights of a mother who, despite attending two or more meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous weekly, appeared at supervised visits reeking of alcohol,18 acted aggressively toward caseworkers, lost the services of three parental aides who refused to continue working for the family, and appeared in the Family Court obviously under the influence of alcohol.19 In In re Steven D., 23 A.3d at 1144-45, DCYF prepared no less than four case plans, each articulating the stated goal that the parents should maintain a substance-abuse-free lifestyle — which included utilizing “a network of ‘clean and sober supports such as church, AA/NA, and community providers,’ ” id. at 1142, as well as anger management counseling at Family Resources, and the services of the four parent aides.20 A majority of the members of this Court vacated the decree terminating the mother’s parental rights for the primary reason that the mother never was offered alcohol counseling, notwithstanding that she regularly was attending AA and failed to acknowledge her alcoholism at any point in that long, drawn-out saga.21
*669I contrast the holding in In re Steven D. with the case on appeal — one of the very next cases of termination of parental rights in which the adequacy and .reasonableness of the efforts made by DCYF is challenged. In this case, virtually no services were offered by DCYF to the respondent father, yet this Court upholds the termination decree — correctly, I conclude — because the father independently was receiving counseling for his psychiatric and substance abuse problems from NRI Community Services — sadly, to no avail. Significantly, no parenting classes, counseling services, or other assistance were offered to this respondent by DCYF.
In this case, the Court, appropriately I believe, anchors its conclusion that the prerequisite of reasonable efforts was satisfied, not on the basis that the services were offered or provided by DCYF, but rather, on our well-settled law that the services need not be offered by DCYF if they are obtained elsewhere. Here, DCYF acknowledged, and this Court recognized, that DCYF did not make any referrals for the father because he was receiving counseling on his own. In light of the disconnect between In re Steven D. and our holding in this case, and my firm conviction that obtaining counseling services from an entity other than DCYF— including twelve-step programs, such as AA, and church-based groups — satisfies the statutory requirement of reasonable efforts, hopefully In re Steven D. will be limited to its own sad facts.

. At one such visit, the mother told the DCYF case worker, "I said I wouldn’t show up to visits drinking. I never said I wouldn't show up drunk.” In re Steven D., 23 A.3d 1138, 1146 (R.I.2011).

. Her defense consisted of a declaration that she consumed only a six-pack of beer the previous evening.

. Three parent aides refused to provide services to the parents based on their lack of cooperation, and the fourth left the agency. In re Steven D., 23 A.3d at 1146.

. The respondent mother in In re Steven D. also was referred for domestic violence and mental health counseling, but was unsuccessful and uncooperative at both. Moreover, both parents were referred to NRI Community Services for substance abuse evaluations, the same agency that provided services to the *669respondent father in the case at bar. Those evaluations concluded that neither parent had a substance abuse problem at that time. In re Steven D., 23 A.3d at 1142.