RI Divorce, Child Custody & Family Law Center

Best Source of Rhode Island Family Court Info

David Slepkow

Why is there a 3 month Waiting Period to Enter Final Judgment?

By

In a Rhode Island divorce, the final judgment of divorce may not be entered until three months after the nominal divorce trial. It is a common misconception that you have to wait 90 days after the nominal divorce to enter final judgment. The law states that the waiting period is 3 months. If the divorce culminates with a contested divorce trial and a decision rendered by an Associate Justice of the RI Family Court, then the parties must wait for three months after the Judges’ decision.

The husband & wife remain legally married during the 3 month period until Final Judgment actually enters

Final- Judgment
Final Judgment of Divorce

Final Judgment enters when the judge signs the final judgment. BE VERY CAREFUL! Final Judgment of divorce does not automatically enter in Rhode Island! The litigants remain Legally married until Final Judgment. Final Judgment also cannot enter if there are motions pending before the Court.

15-5-23 Remarriage – Final decree. –” (a) No judgment for a divorce shall become final and operative until three (3) months after the trial and decision.”

Can the three-month waiting period be shortened?

No. the three-month waiting period is mandated by Rhode Island Law. It cannot be shortened. However, there is one exception to this rule. A RI divorce granted by the RI Family Court based on the grounds of living separate and apart for a space of 3 years has a significantly shorter waiting period.  Final judgment of divorce on the grounds of living separate and apart can be enter 20 days after a judicial officer signs the decision pending entry of final judgment and it is entered by the Court. The reason for the 20 day waiting period is that theoretically there could still be an appeal of the decision pending entry of final judgment within the 20 day period appeal window.

Why is there a 3-month waiting period in Rhode Island?

The RI Legislature intended this to be a ‘cooling off’ period in which the parties could change their mind reconcile and remain married. This is not surprising in a heavily Catholic state. However, the rule appears to be antiquated.

§ 15-5-23. Final judgment – Remarriage.

(a) No judgment for a divorce shall become final and operative until three (3) months after the trial and decision. Final decree from the bond of marriage may be entered ex parte and in chambers on the suggestion of the prevailing party at any time within one hundred eighty (180) days next after the expiration of three (3) months from the date of decision. After the expiration of the one hundred eighty (180) days, final decrees may be entered only in open court and on motion or upon written consent of the attorneys or parties. Notice of the filing of the motion shall not be required in cases in which the original complaint is unanswered.

(b) After entry of the final judgment for a divorce from the bond of marriage, either party may marry again.

Assets acquired by either party after the nominal hearing yet before the entry of final Judgment are marital in nature subject to equitable division.

  • If husband or wife wins the lottery after the nominal divorce but before entry of final judgment then the lottery winnings are marital property subject to equitable division. ” We hold only that the trial justice erred in failing to conclude that the lottery prize was a marital asset and whether the wife was entitled to a portion thereof.” Giha v Giha, 609 A.2d 945 (1992)
  • If there is an executed and approved property settlement agreement / marital settlement agreement  in the divorce with the parties waiving rights to after acquired assets then the lottery winnings are not part of the marital estate subject to equitable division.

.

Beware of Damaging Social Media Posts in Divorce & Custody Cases

By

pitfalls-social-media-divorce
The dangers of Social media and divorce

Do not post inappropriate content on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter (NOW X) or social networks. Inappropriate posts may indicate that you are an unfit parent, abuse drugs or alcohol or otherwise not acting in the best interest of your child.  The other parent may be trolling around your Facebook page looking for any angle to help prevail in a custody feud. A seemingly innocuous “Facebook friend” may actually be feeding information to the other parent.

Social media posts and divorce:

  • Do not post any negative or disparaging remarks or comments about the other parent, the judge, the psychiatrist, the psychologist, the  guardian ad litem, or anyone involved in the custody proceeding.
  • Do not post about your ex girlfriend’s Rhode Island child custody lawyer.
  • Refrain from posting about your ex girlfriend’s family.

Do not blog about your case.

You should fight your divorce case in Providence Family Court. The divorce should not be litigated on your blog or Instagram account. These blogs infuriate judges especially when there is a chance that the minor children may view the blog.

  • how is social media research changing child custody disputes
  • using social media in custody case
  • social media and family law
  • social media posting during custody cases
  • text messages used in child custody
  • non custodial parent posting pictures
  • can facebook messages be used in family court
  • social media in divorce cases

Why should you avoid blogging about you divorce?

  • Your spouse will inform the judge about the content of your posts. This may create a negative perception of you. Perception is reality!
  • Damaging information may damage your legal position in the divorce.

Social media and child support contempt

Social media can be a minefield for litigants in Providence Family Court facing child support contempt proceedings. If a litigant is asserting that he is unable to pay child support but Facebook posts are unearthed that undercut that assertion, it can be very problematic. Here are some of the types of posts that can cause a father to be found in willful contempt for failure to pay child support:

  • Pictures of a lavish vacation while refusing to pay child support
  • Posts concerning work history when a litigant claims he has no income and no employment
  • Posts concerning expensive purchases while failing to pay a Rhode Island child support obligation

“During the discovery process, it is common for a domestic attorney to request that the opposing party produce a complete copy of their Facebook history. What is the opposing counsel looking for? Images or messages that reflect that you are an unfit parent, that you cheated (or are cheating) on your spouse, that you made disparaging comments about your spouse, or even that you confessed your own marital or parenting faults and failures – all of which could be damaging to your domestic case.”  Joseph, Greenwald and Laake, PA. 

Legal Notice per RI Rules of Professional Responsibility:

The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers and attorneys in the general practice of law but does not license or certify any lawyers as an expert or specialist in any field of practice.

‎

Do Mothers Always get Custody of Young Children?

By

Is the “Tender Years Doctrine” really dead in Rhode Island? The tender years doctrine is an outdated legal theory that while the children are young they should be placed with their mother. The tender years doctrine is NOT the law in RI, now. If you are involved in a custodial battle in Rhode Island family court, contact a Rhode Island child custody attorney. A Rhode Island child custody lawyer will help you get the justice you deserve and the legal help you need. (Updated May 25, 2025)

The “tender years doctrine” is a historical legal principle that favored mothers in custody cases involving young children, primarily those under the age of 7. It presumed that mothers were better equipped to care for young children due to their nurturing abilities and that it was in the child’s best interest to be with their mother. While the doctrine has largely been replaced by the “best interests of the child” standard, it’s important to understand its historical context and potential lingering influence in some jurisdictions. 

The Tender Years Doctrine is not really the law in Rhode Island

Providence Family Court child custody attorney
custody lawyers in Rhode Island

The Tender Years Doctrine is not technically the law in Rhode Island.  The seminal custody case in Rhode Island, PETTINATO v. PETTINATO 582 A.2d 909 (1990), sets forth the official  RI laws concerning child custody of young children. Pettinato adopted “the best interest of the child standard*** for Child Custody determinations in Rhode Island Family Court.

Do not directly cite “the tender years doctrine” in Providence Family Court!

However, in the real world of Rhode Island Family Court “the Tender Years Doctrine” is far from dead. If you ask a 100 lawyers what the general standard for child custody cases they will cite Pettinato v Pettinato for the best interest of the child standard. But if you ask those same 100 RI divorce lawyers who would win a custody battle between a mother and father who are equally suitable parents, the vast majority would say the mother. In essence, in the real world, the tie goes to the mother especially when dealing with young children.

Tender Years doctrine still unofficially exists in some capacity in Rhode Island

However, the tender Years doctrine still unofficially exists in Rhode Island. It involves mothers having a distinct advantage in child custody cases involving young children from infants to 7 year old. This is an unspoken advantage for mothers in Rhode Island. This is an unspoken bias of some Rhode Island family Court Judges. This does not mean that mothers always get physical placement /  physical custody of young children in Family Court.

If both parents request placement of  a child and are roughly equal then typically the mother will win physical custody

Providence child custody attorneys
East Providence custody attorneys

There have been many cases when the father gets custody of a young child when the mother has drug and alcohol problems, mental health issues, a criminal record or neglects the child. The Rhode Island Supreme Court has had opportunities to shut the door on the old common law Tender Years Doctrine but has passed on shutting the door on at least two occasions.  In the Loebenberg case, in 1956, the Rhode Island Supreme Court had an opportunity to shut the door on “the Tender Years doctrine” and 100 percent adapt the best interest of the child doctrine.

Loebenberg Court failed to completely debunk the tender years doctrine by using cryptic language

Surprisingly, the Loebenberg Court failed to completely debunk the tender years doctrine by using cryptic language insinuating that the tender years doctrine was a “general guide ” in making decision while officially adopting the best interest of the child standard. In LOEBENBERG v. LOEBENBERG, 127 A.2d 500 (1956), The Supreme Court of Rhode Island stated: “The petitioner calls to our attention the cases holding that the mother being fit should have custody of young children, especially girls. We recognize this as a general guide in making a decision, but the controlling factor in cases between parents, as here, is always the best interest of the child for the time being.” Kelley v. Kelley, 77 R.I. 229.

In BERARD v. BERARD, 749 A.2d 577 (2000) The Supreme Court of Rhode Island again had another chance to do what the Loebenberg Court refused to do and officially shut the door on the “tender years Doctrine”. Instead, the Bedard Court fueled the fire of those who believe that the Tender Years doctrine is alive and well in Rhode Island.

“It is well-settled that the best interests of the child remains the “lode-star principle”

“It is well-settled that the best interests of the child remain the “lode-star principle” for determining child custody awards. Sammataro v. Sammataro,620 A.2d 1253, 1254 (R.I.1993). In support of her argument that she should have been awarded custody of the children, defendant relies upon Loebenberg v. Loebenberg, 85 R.I. 115, 127 A.2d 500 (1956), for the proposition that a mother who is “fit” should have custody of young children, especially girls. We stated in Loebenberg that this was merely a “general guide,” and that the best interests of the child ultimately governed custody disputes. Id. at 120-21, 127 A.2d at 503.”

The Bedard Court described the best interest of the child standard as “lode-star principle” but did not say it was the only principal. In Bedard, The RI Supreme Court Quoted Loebenberg’s “general guide” language. ***This court has held that child-custody awards must be made in the “best interest[s]” of the child. Petition of Loudin, 101 R.I. 35, 39, 219 A.2d 915, 918 (1966). Susanne argues that the trial justice’s custody award was not in accordance with the best interests of Gregory, Jr.

Legal Notice per Rules of Professional Responsibility: The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers and attorneys in the general practice of law, but does not license or certify any lawyer / attorney as an expert or specialist in any field of practice.

Child Support RI | Payment Instructions and Address

By

If you are legally obligated to make your Child Support payments through the state of Rhode Island (child support RI), then all checks or money orders must be made payable to the:

“Rhode Island Family Court”

  • Send the RI child support payments to “RI Child Support Payment Service Unit P.O. Box 5073 Hartford, CT 06102-5073”

Identify any child support checks or money orders by PRINTING your name & The Docket Number on your check.

Get the 2023 Rhode Island child support guidelines and 2023 child support in RI worksheet

Providence Family Court- child support ri
Child Support ri Family Courthouse

I don’t think it is good public policy for the State of Rhode Island, Child Support Enforcement to contract with an out of state Connecticut company when the state of RI has unemployment. If you are under a direct payment order, then you should continue to pay the mother of your child directly.

If you meet any of the following criteria, then all  child support payments must be sent to the above addressor you can also make your support payments on the 2nd floor of Providence Family Court “reciprocal clerk”:

1.) You were previously under a Rhode Island child support garnishment order, but you are now unemployed and unemployment or a new job has not started garnishing your wages again.

2.) You have a “cash” medical obligation as a result of fact that the mother of your child is on rite care or rite share.

3.) You are under a Family Court order to pay your child support through the State of Rhode Island because the mother of the child or children is either a full-service client of the state of Rhode Island or  receiving bookkeeping services from Rhode Island.

4.) If a css1 form has been submitted to the reciprocal clerk and an order is running on the system, then you will not get credit for payments made directly to the other parent.

Multi-state Divorce & Child Custody Litigation

By

Rhode Island lawyer David Slepkow has extensive experience representing clients involved in multi-state child custody, divorce and child support litigation. He also represents many out of state family law Clients. David works with out of state clients to provide them with the same high level of service and exceptional results that he provides to his RI based clients.

RI Family Court attorney representing the military

Multi-state Child Custody cases
Multi-state child custody cases

David Slepkow represents clients from across the United Sates. Numerous litigants seeking a divorce in RI, are in active duty military service. Many litigants are international clients and clients from across the United States. David has extensive interstate child custody and visitation experience. David has represented many clients in the United States Army, Navy, Air force, Merchant Marines, National Guard and / or Marines.

Multi-state custody and family law litigation

David Slepkow will take the necessary actions to resolve a custody, child support or family law matter without requiring his out of state or international clients to attend court. In many cases, David is able to arrange a telephonic custody or child support hearing. This allows his clients who reside in other states or countries to be able to testify in Providence Family Court Hearing without the expense and hassle of attending Family Court in RI.

UCCJEA and PKPA | multi-state laws

David has in depth and extensive experience resolving custody cases involving the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA). Read the Rhode Island UCCJEA Here: CHAPTER 15-14.1  Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

David also has experience representing clients in:

  • Multi State Child Support Issues involving contempt,
  • child support liens,
  • child support modification,
  • Child Support Terminations,
  • College and Daycare Issues,
  • Motions to modify Child Support,
  • License Suspensions as a result of Child Support Arrears,
  • Motions to determine arrears

Multi-state child custody and child support Cases

David has represented clients in multi-state child custody and child support Cases involving Rhode Island and the following states: Florida, California, Utah, Texas, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Colorado and other states.

David has represented many clients who no longer reside in Rhode Island but are in the process of obtaining a divorce in Rhode Island. David has also handled Dozens of visitation cases involving children residing in Rhode Island who visit with parents in other states. David also has extensive experience in relocation cases in which one parent seeks to permanently change the residency of a child and relocate of Rhode Island and the other parent seeks to oppose the relocation.

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)

UIFSA is the uniform law adopted by states to establish and enforce child support orders across state lines. The Uniform Family Support Act assures that child support orders are fully recognized as well as enforced in other states. This prevents parents from evading child support obligations by moving out of state. UIFSA also clarifies and simplifies the process for establishing paternity and enforcing child support orders when more than 1 state is involved. UIFSA helps establish jurisdiction to establish a support obligation or modify it. UIFSA permits states to enforce child support orders made in other states. This makes it more simple to collect child support payments across state lines. 

David is very accommodating to his out of State clients

David is very accommodating to his out of state clients. David has represented many clients who he never actually met in person. David communicates with his out if state and international clients via email, fax, federal express, instant message and phone.

Multi-state Custody issues typically involve the UCCJEA. The UCCJEA has been adopted in almost every state and the District of Columbia, Guam and the US Virgin Islands. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”) is a Uniform Act drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1997.