In re B.M. In re A.M. In re N.M.

Syllabus

The respondent father, Michael M., appealed from a decree of the Family Court, issued pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 15-7-7(a)(3), that terminated his parental rights to his three sons: B.M., A.M., and N.M. On appeal, the respondent argues that the trial justice erred in finding that DCYF, by clear and convincing evidence, proved his unfitness and that it made reasonable efforts toward reunification. Additionally, the respondent argued that, because the best interests of the children can be determined only after a parent is found to be unfit, the trial justice necessarily erred in reaching the question of best interests. The Supreme Court concluded that the record below contained sufficient competent evidence supporting the trial justice's findings regarding the respondent's unfitness, DCYF's reasonable efforts, and the best interests of the children. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Family Court.