Rhode Island Supreme Court vacates placement order lacking findings

The Rhode Island Supreme Court vacated the portion of a Family Court order awarding a mother primary placement of the parties’ children because the record lacked factual findings sufficient to review the children’s best interests. The court separately affirmed a child-support guideline worksheet and remanded for further proceedings.

In Conway v. Orenberg, the parents had disputed custody and placement during proceedings that included a protective-order case, mediation and the appointment of a guardian ad litem. At a June 2024 hearing, the Family Court entered a placement order after counsel presented it, and the father’s attorney stated his objection on the record. The guardian recommended that the mother retain primary placement. The father appealed the placement order and two support-related orders.

The Supreme Court noted that the trial court need not recite a particular formula or expressly name every factor from Pettinato v. Pettinato. It must, however, articulate a basis that demonstrates paramount consideration of the children’s best interests and includes factual findings sufficient for appellate review. The court found that the only evidence the hearing justice considered on primary placement was the guardian’s brief oral recommendation and that the justice made no findings concerning best interests. It therefore vacated the placement award. The decision did not award primary placement to the father.

The support worksheet presented a separate question. The court considered counsel’s signature, the procedural record and the father’s argument that he disagreed with the numbers. It explained that a client is generally bound by counsel’s acts absent fraud or special circumstances, affirmed the worksheet, and noted that an appropriate later motion to modify the support calculation remained available. Its decision also treated the challenge to a handwritten order concerning the same support obligation as moot. The court remanded the case to Family Court.

The ruling concerns the findings and procedural record in this particular dispute. It does not prescribe a single placement outcome or require a court to use particular words when applying the best-interest framework.