In Re Raymond B.
In Re Raymond B.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION
This case came before a hearing panel of this court for oral argument on April 2,1996, pursuant to an order that directed all parties to appear and show cause why the issues raised by the respondent-parents’ appeal from an order of the Family Court terminating their parental rights should not be summarily decided.
After hearing the arguments of counsel and considering the memoranda submitted by the parties, we are of the opinion that cause has not been shown. The issues raised in the appeal will be decided at this time.
The respondent-parents appeal from the termination of their parental rights to their four children, Raymond, Jr. (born August 3, 1982), Stacy (born September 13, 1983), Joseph (born July 29, 1986) and Sandra Lee (bom January 5,1988).
On December 22, 1992, DCYF filed an involuntary termination of parental rights petition pursuant to G.L.1956 § 15 — 7—7(l)(b)(iii) and (l)(c). On September 16, 1993 DCYF filed a second petition to terminate pursuant to § 15 — 7—7(l)(b)(ii) based on “[cjonduct toward any child of a cruel and abusive nature.”
We need not set out in detail the evidence presented to the trial justice concerning the home setting in which the four minor children were required to live. Words such as “cruel,” “bizarre” and “obscene” can hardly describe the parental conduct of the parents in the case. The trial justice had before him more than clear and convincing evidence from which to find and conclude that the parents were unfit by reason of their cruel and abusive conduct toward their four children and, as a consequence, to terminate their parental rights to those children. We will not disturb that finding.
The parents’ appeal is denied and dismissed and the Family Court judgment terminating their parental rights in Raymond Jr., Stacy, Joseph, and Sandra Lee is affirmed. The papers in the case are remanded to the Family Court.
. General Laws 1956 § 15-7-7 was amended in July 1994, but the language of § 15 — 7—7(1 )(b)(ii), the subsection relevant to DCYF's second petition, remained unchanged.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.