In Re Nicole G.
1990 WL 91593, 577 A.2d 248, 1990 R.I. LEXIS 130 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A family court has the authority to order a state's child welfare agency to provide housing assistance to a family when homelessness is the primary factor preventing family reunification. This is a component of the agency's statutory duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify families.
Facts:
- A child is placed in the legal custody of the Department for Children and Their Families (DCF).
- The child's parent(s) are homeless or lack adequate housing.
- DCF has a statutory duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family.
- The parent's homelessness is determined to be the primary obstacle preventing the child's safe return from foster care to the family home.
Procedural Posture:
- In two separate cases, the Rhode Island Family Court, a trial-level court, ordered the Department for Children and Their Families (DCF) to provide housing assistance to families.
- The Family Court in each case had determined that homelessness was the primary factor preventing the reunification of the mothers with their children, who were in DCF custody.
- DCF, the respondent in the Family Court proceedings, filed consolidated petitions for certiorari with the Rhode Island Supreme Court, the state's highest court, seeking review of the Family Court's decrees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May the Family Court order the Department for Children and Their Families (DCF) to provide housing assistance to the families of children in DCF custody when the court finds that homelessness is the primary factor preventing family reunification?
Opinions:
Majority - Fay, Chief Justice
Yes. The Family Court may order DCF to provide housing assistance when homelessness is the primary factor preventing family reunification, as such assistance falls within DCF's statutory duty to make 'reasonable efforts' to reunite families. The court reasoned that DCF's broad statutory mandate to mobilize resources for the well-being of children includes providing services to ameliorate problems, like homelessness, that prevent a child's discharge from foster care. Rejecting DCF's separation-of-powers argument, the court held that such orders are a necessary judicial check on the executive agency to ensure it provides adequate services before parental rights are terminated. The court also noted that temporary housing assistance may be more cost-effective than long-term foster care and is a fulfillment, not a diversion, of DCF's primary mission to reunify families.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that a child welfare agency's duty to make 'reasonable efforts' for family reunification is not abstract but can require concrete, financial assistance to overcome specific barriers. It significantly empowers family courts to order executive agencies to provide tangible services, like housing subsidies, that directly address the root causes of family separation. This precedent shifts the focus of reunification efforts towards practical, real-world solutions and holds agencies accountable for addressing socioeconomic factors, like homelessness, that impact family stability. Consequently, child welfare agencies may need to re-evaluate their budgets and service offerings to include such forms of direct assistance.
