RI Domestic Relations & Family Court

Rhode Island divorce lawyer, David Slepkow, discusses the unfortunate pervasiveness of misrepresentation and outright lies by litigants in Providence Family Court.

Is anyone ever held accountable for lying in Rhode Island Family Court?

Litigants in the Rhode Island Family Court  are rarely held accountable for false statements made in Family Court.  There is rarely a punishment for lies in Family Court. The Rhode Island Family Court and divorce cases are sometimes partly based on conferences or hearings without testimony.

The problem with conferences

These conferences are sometimes in a back room without the clients present. Some of these conferences are meetings at the bench between the attorneys and the judge.

In other words, in most instances the attorney is making representations to the Court on behalf of his or her client. The lawyer repeats assertions by his or her client.  Therefore, the lawyer does not know that the information presented by his client is false. Editor’s note – March 2025- conferences are not as prevalent and important as they were in the past.

Willful ignorance

In some cases the issue pertains to the concept of willful ignorance. Attorneys know who pays the bills. Divorce lawyers often do not want to directly confront their client with contradictory information. In some cases, the lawyer is completely hoodwinked by the client

RI lawyers do not lie but they sometimes unwittingly repeat misrepresentations

Rhode Island divorce lawyers do not lie. RI child custody attorneys do not intentionally make misrepresentations in front of the judge. The RI divorce Attorneys often unwittingly repeat lies or commit “willful ignorance” by not properly challenging their family law clients. The Rhode Island Divorce attorney does not want to lose his client. He or she may be hesitant to directly challenge their client’s recitation of facts. The only way to really attempt to get to some semblance of the truth is a hearing with testimony and cross examination. 

Cross examination- a way to get the truth

The only way to get to justice is to put people under oath and have them cross examined. It can be challenging to get a testimonial hearing in Rhode Island Family Court.  Sometimes it is difficult to get a trial or hearing.

2025 update: However, in the last 5 years with an influx of modern, progressive judges and Magistrates testimonial hearings are increasingly commonplace in Providence Family Court.

A trial or testimonial hearing can be very costly

It is very expensive to get a testimonial hearing in Court. Sometimes, there is not enough in controversy, so to speak, to make it worthwhile for the parties to demand a hearing and expose exaggeration or lies. Divorce and Child Custody matters often have huge stakes and sometimes people are desperate to win. The word has gotten out to the public that many people get away with misrepresentations.

If a litigant is desperate and does not want to lose physical placement of a child, they might mislead the Court.  If a person is lying and there is lack of accountability or penalty by the Court, this can be a recipe for a mess.

Also, judges are looking for solutions. Something like ‘you say black -she says white and we will never figure this out so let’s find a solution.’ This mentality ignores the untruthfulness of at least one party and seeks to help the judge move the calendar and get rid of the litigants. Judges are overworked with calendars that are too busy. Judges often do not have the time to get to the bottom of every factual issue.

In some ways, resolving causes of action rather than getting to the truth is the reality in Rhode Island Family Court. Conferences are the main cause of why people get away with bloody murder in Domestic Court. There is no real accountability in a conference. The Attorneys are mouth pieces for their client and statements of lawyers are not testimony. In the past 10 years conferences have a much more reduced role in the RI Family Court process.

Lying or exaggerating in Court is unethical and immoral

Lying or exaggerating in Court is unethical and immoral. There are cases where someone is severely punished for misrepresentations in Court. However, this is the exception rather than the rule. Some judges are more willing to allow hearings with testimony. If you lie under oath you could be prosecuted for perjury. It is very rare for prosecutors to bring criminal charges for perjury in Family Court.

Rhode Island Family Court Lawyer David Slepkow concentrates in Divorce, Child Custody and Family Law.

Surviving a divorce in Rhode Island can be a vulnerable and painful time that seems to never end. In addition to the emotional fallout, many ex-spouses face numerous post-divorce issues involving child support, spousal maintenance, custody issues, child custody motions, alimony terminations, order modifications and enforcement that seem to pull them back into court. Post divorce issues in Rhode Island can be as complicated and perplexing as divorce in itself. Providence Family Court is a complex place. If you are in need of a divorce attorney in Providence, contact one of the top Providence RI divorce lawyers.

Rhode Island Post divorce motions lawyer

Many times, spouses believe that the divorce decree finalizes many of the problems the family faced. However, they later realize that it is the start of lifelong changes that take a substantial amount of time to resolve. In some incidences, the bitter, resentful feelings lead to unexpected consequences. This often manifests itself when a litigant is facing substantial changes in circumstances or when an action is not being complied with in accordance to the judge’s orders.

David Slepkow alimony article: NO justification for nearly everyone to waive alimony in RI divorce

Do’s and Don’ts after divorce

As a part of recovering from the divorce process, the following do’s and don’ts should be followed to minimize many of the legal issues post-divorce. They include:

• Don’t Publicly Display Your Bitter Emotions after divorce– Providence family court judges never look favorably on an ex-spouse who scoops, posts, pins or tweets any information concerning their family law issues, custody challenges or Rhode Island divorce. In fact, public displays of private family information might be detrimental to the children who may view them online. Make the effort to avoid social media and instead win your legal battles in front of your judge in Family Court.
• Do File Modification Petitions Quickly after divorce – It is essential to file your motion in Family Court to modify child support payments if your employment status has changed and you have a substantial decrease in your income. This is because in Rhode Island, child support can only be modified retroactively from the date your motion was filed and the other litigant was served a notice of the claim.
• Do Follow Acceptable Court Decorum – Show up to court dressed properly and never interrupt the RI Family Court judge. It is essential to remember that perception is reality everywhere, including in Providence Family Court, which should never be confused with a nightclub, gym or beach. Also, do not overdress because it makes it look like you are trying too hard.
• Don’t Be Disrespectful – Any display of disrespect to court investigators, sheriffs, court personnel or court clerks will not sit well with your Family Court judge in charge of making decisions about your future and the future of your children. Be respectful at all times and recognize that Kent County judges will always protect their staff.
• Don’t Take Illegal Drugs – If you are in the middle of a contested visitation or custody battle, it is essential to avoid all illegal drugs including marijuana and cocaine. This is because as a custodial matter, you are likely subject to take drug tests at any given moment.
• Do Take the Time to Make the Right Decisions post-divorce– Making a rash decision involving your family or divorce disputes when angry will never serve in your best interest. Take all the time you need to make the right decision for all involved.
• Don’t Belittle Others in Front of Minor Children – Directly or indirectly belittling your minor children’s other parent when young children can hear the communication must be avoided at all times. This means never fighting or arguing with the other parent anytime the child is present or in the vicinity.

Following these do’s and don’ts after divorce can help you obtain the best answers in resolving your post-divorce issues. While settling disputes do not always happen right away, many of the legal problems you are dealing with after your divorce will be settled in time.

Can my ex wife claim Social Security money after divorce?

“If you are divorced, but your marriage lasted 10 years or longer, you can receive benefits on your ex-spouse’s record (even if they have remarried) if:

• You are unmarried;
• You are age 62 or older;
• Your ex-spouse is entitled to Social Security retirement or disability benefits; and
• The benefit you are entitled to receive based on your own work is less than the benefit you would receive based on your ex-spouse’s work.” SSA
• This does not affect in any way the amount of benefits your ex spouse receives from social security.
• Remember, Social security is an entitlement not a property right

Can you sue for alimony after divorce is final?

• If you waived alimony permanently in the divorce nominal hearing and/ or the property settlement agreement, you cannot get alimony.
• If alimony was left”open” in your divorce you can seek alimony after the divorce.
• An Alimony  Judgment is modifiable during the term of the alimony award based on a substantial change in circumstances.
• Alimony in not modifiable if there is a property settlement agreement in which the parties agree that the alimony is non-modifiable.

Numerous rules pertain to post judgment motions in Rhode Island Family Court.

• Rule 52(b)-amend court filing
• 55(c)- default judgments
• 59(a)- New trial
• 59(e)- alter / amend judgment
• 60(a) clerical mistakes
• 60(b) relief from final judgment
• 62- stay execution of judgment
• 64(A)- post final judgment motions related to alimony, child support, child custody and visitation)

“The biggest mistake divorcing spouses can make is being in the dark about finances. If your spouse has always handled all of the financial decisions in your household and you don’t have any information about you and your spouse’s income and assets, your spouse will have an unfair advantage over you when it comes time to settle the financial issues in your divorce. If you suspect your spouse is planning a divorce, get as much information as you can now. Make copies of important financial records such as account statements (eg., savings, brokerage, and retirement) and all other data that relates to your marital lifestyle (eg.,checking accounts, charge card statements, tax returns).”  DivorceNet  (Divorce net published by Nolo, 15 Critical Mistakes in Divorce)

Rhode Island divorce lawyer, David Slepkow represents clients in Rhode Island Family Court in the following types of family law matters: child custody, visitation, child support, divorce, alimony and paternity. David  Slepkow was voted a top three lawyer in Rhode Island by the Providence Journal Reader’s poll.

Please read the seminal case of Dupre v. Dupre which explains the law in RI for relocation of children out of state in Rhode Island (RI). The general standard for relocation in RI is the “best interest of the child.” The Family Court in RI must look at the factors set forth in Dupre as well as looking at the custody factors set forth in Pettinato v. Pettinato.

Child Relocation law

Please consult with a Rhode Island divorce lawyer or a child custody attorney in RI to determine your chances to be able to relocate out of state. Many custodial parents are asking the following questions concerning relocation of children:

• Can I move my kids out of state without fathers permission?
• Can a custodial parent move out of state?
• Can a mother move away from a father?
• Can I move out of state if I have sole custody?
• Can a mother take a child without father’ permission?

The Factors set forth by the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Dupre v Dupre are set forth below:

Below you will find the factors that RI Family Court Judges utilize to determine whether a custodial parent can move out of state with the minor children against the wishes of the non- custodial parent.  These are quotes from the Rhode Island Supreme Court case, Dupre v Dupre. These significant quotes are presented by Rhode Island relocation attorney, David Slepkow.

“The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the parent proposing to relocate and with the non-relocating parent.”

• “Any relocation analysis should begin with an assessment of the relationship between each parent and the child. Although certainly a relevant consideration, a parent’s legal status as custodial parent is not necessarily controlling. A parent, who previously has been awarded sole custody, has been entrusted with the authority to make decisions regarding the child’s health, education, and welfare. In actual practice, however, that parent may not be the child’s primary caretaker. So, too, in the case of joint custody, it does not necessarily follow that both parents are, in fact, sharing the custodial responsibilities on a relatively equal basis. The A.L.I. Principles speak in terms of “a parent who has been exercising the clear majority of custodial responsibility.” A.L.I. ch.2, § 2.17(4)(a). We reject any mechanical or formulaic approach to determining which parent may be acting as  a primary caretaker or what may constitute a clear majority of custodial responsibility, but leave that to the sound discretion of the trial justice. It entails more than a simple measurement of the time that the child spends with each parent, and requires an examination of the quality of the relationship that the child enjoys with each parent. The A.L.I. Principles emphasize the maintenance of continuity in caretaking for the child, and that “when the child has had one clearly primary caretaker, the best interests of the child are more closely tied to the interests and quality of life of that caretaker than to the other parent.” A.L.I. ch.2, § 2.17, cmt. a. at 357. If one parent, in fact, exercises a significant majority of the parental duties and responsibilities, the child’s best interests undoubtedly will be closely intertwined with the well-being of that parent. “The paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements — and the harm that may result from disruption of established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker — weigh heavily in  favor of maintaining ongoing custody arrangements.” In re Marriage of Burgess, 913 P.2d at 478-79. On the other hand, the attachment between the child and the non-relocating parent also will be an important consideration. Tropea, 665 N.E.2d at 149.  Supreme Court of Rhode Island. Robert E. DUPRE v. Melanie S. DUPRE. 

The reasonable likelihood that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the child and the parent seeking the relocation, including, but not limited to, economic and emotional benefits, and educational opportunities.

• Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704, 481 N.E.2d 1153, 1158 (Mass. 1985) (“An evaluation of the best interests of the child requires attention to whether the quality of the child’s life may be improved by the change * * * and the extent to which moving or not moving will affect the emotional, physical, or developmental needs of the child.”); see also Baures, 770 A.2d at 229 (Court should consider whether the child “will receive educational, health and leisure opportunities at least equal to what is available” in present location.); Model Act, 15 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. § 405(6). Id.

The probable impact that the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development. Any special needs of the child should also be taken into account in considering this factor.

• Model Act, 15 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. § 405(2).

The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.

• See Ireland, 717 A.2d at 685; Tropea, 665 N.E.2d at 151; Model Act, 15 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. § 405(3). Certainly, the history and past actions of the relocating parent either to foster the relationship between the child and the other parent, or to frustrate the relationship, would be an important consideration. So, too, would be the failure of the non-relocating parent to avail himself or herself of available opportunities for visitation. Id.

The existence of extended family or other support systems available to the child in both locations

• See, e.g., Hollandsworth, 109 S.W.3d at 664 (the effect of the move on the extended family relationship in the location in which the children and parent will relocate, as well as in the location they presently reside); Baures, 770 A.2d at 230 (considers the effect of the move on extended family relationships in both locations). Id.

Each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation

• “A parent’s desire to relocate with his or her children ought not be predicated upon a whim. On the other hand, as we previously have noted, a relocating parent need not establish a compelling reason for the move. The motivation for the relocation, however, will be a significant consideration. Clearly, a vindictive desire to interfere in the other parent’s relationship with the child would weigh heavily against the parent seeking to relocate. A.L.I. ch.2, § 2.17(4)(a). The A.L.I. Principles identify the following non-exclusive list of purposes for a relocation as valid:
• “(1) to be close to significant family or other sources of support, (2) to address significant health problems, (3) to protect the safety of the child or another member of the child’s household from a significant risk of harm, (4) to pursue a significant employment or educational opportunity, (5) to be with one’s spouse or domestic partner who lives in, or is pursuing a significant employment or [*259] educational opportunity in, the new location, (6) to significantly improve the family’s quality of life. The relocating parent should have the burden of proving the validity of any other purpose.” Section 2.17(4)(a)(ii). The A.L.I. Principles further provide that a move for a valid purpose is reasonable unless “its purpose is shown to be substantially achievable without moving, or by moving to a location that is substantially less disruptive of the other parent’s relationship to the child.” Section 2.17(4)(a)(iii). Id.
• The motives of the parent opposing the move also should be considered. A parent may be objecting to the child’s relocation to secure a financial advantage or to exercise a measure of control over an ex-spouse, rather than out of a sincere desire to foster a relationship with the child.” Id.

“In cases of international relocation, the question of whether the country to which the child is to be relocated is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction will be an important consideration.”

• This only applies to international relocation cases which are infrequent in Providence Family Court.

“To the extent that they may be relevant to a relocation inquiry, the Pettinato factors*** also will be significant.”

• We reemphasize that our recitation of factors to be considered is not intended to be exhaustive. Nor is  any one factor dispositive. Each case will present its own unique circumstances that a trial justice must balance and weigh as he or she deems appropriate.” Id.

Below you will find the Pettinato Factors used in RI child custody cases:

1. The wishes of the child’s parent or parents regarding the child’s custody.
2. The reasonable preference of the child, if the court deems the child to be of sufficient intelligence, understanding, and experience to express a preference.
3. The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child’s parent or parents, the child’s siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest.
4. The child’s adjustment to the child’s home, school, and community.
5. The mental and physical health of all individuals involved. “
6. The stability of the child’s home environment.
7. The moral fitness of the child’s parents.
8. The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate a close and continuous parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent.”    No. 89-56-A. 582 A.2d 909 (1990) Gregory J. PETTINATO v. Susanne L. PETTINATO. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. November 30, 1990.

If you are seeking or opposing an out of state relocation, contact Rhode Island relocation attorney David Slepkow. A RI relocation lawyer will fight to protect your rights.

Rhode Island General Law Section 15-5-16.2.2 makes it illegal for an employer to impede, evade or obstruct Family Court service of process on the employee concerning child support or alimony. The employer may designate a “specific” area where the RI Family Court Service of process can be effectuated.

Divorce service of Process

It is illegal for the employer to fire or dismiss the employee because he was served with child support or alimony process at work. I wonder why this law does not include specifically service of process of divorce, paternity and child custody cases? Please contact Top Rhode Island child support Attorney David Slepkow.

Read the Rhode Island Law here:

§ 15-5-16.2.2 Service of court papers at work. –No employer in this state is permitted to refuse or obstruct the service of family court process relating to child or spousal support upon an employee at the place of employment and the service shall not be grounds for dismissal of the employee. The employer may designate an area where the service may be effected.

Constable nightmare:

“PENN TWP., Pa. – A Perry County family and a state constable are both mourning the death of a 12-year-old girl who died in a shooting as the constable was enforcing an eviction notice. Constable Clarke Steele, who has served in Perry and Dauphin counties for the past six years, was enforcing an eviction order at the home of 57-year-old Donald Meyer and his family.

Police say after a verbal dispute, Meyer pointed a loaded rifle at Steele. “[Meyer] put the constable in a situation where he had to make a decision to use deadly force, and he did, and now we have this tragedy,” Trooper Rob Hicks of the Pennsylvania State Police said.

Steele shot Meyer in the arm, but the bullet went through and struck Meyer’s 12-year-old daughter, police said. She died from the gunshot.”  Fox

If you are considering a relocation out of state with a minor child, consult with a Rhode Island child custody attorney. A Providence relocation lawyer will explain your rights and legal obligations as well as your chances of relocation.

Child Relocation in RI

A relocation petition in Rhode Island and Providence Plantations will be determined by the Providence Family Court judge pursuant to the seminal case of Robert E. Dupre v. Melanie S. Dupre.

If there are no Rhode Island visitation or custody orders regarding my child, can I relocate my child without the permission of the other parent?

This article only pertains to Rhode Island family law. Assuming, there are no visitation or custodial orders, technically, it is not illegal to relocate your child out of the State of Rhode Island without the other parent’s consent. This is not kidnapping. However, the relocating parent must notify the other parent where he or she is relocating. The relocating parent must provide contact info to the other parent. If a relocation is directly or indirectly in violation of a custody or visitation orders from a Court, such a relocation could constitute contempt or even kidnapping,

Not a good decision to relocate children without the other parent’s consent and without Court approval.

I strongly advise against relocating your child without the other parent’s consent.  This type of relocation under the cover of darkness can be very harmful to your child. The other parent may file in Rhode Island Family Court seeking a temporary restraining order, ordering that you immediately return the child back to Rhode Island.

This type of relocation of your children is at your own risk. You could pay a severe penalty! This type of relocation could cause you to lose physical custody of your child. If you are ordered back and you left without permission, this could seriously impede your chances to relocate the child in the future.

The Factors that the Court must look at in making relocation decision:

“(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child’s relationship with the parent proposing to relocate and with the non-relocating parent.   See In re Marriage of Burgess, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 444, 913 P.2d at 483; Tropea, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d at 151;

(2) The reasonable likelihood that the relocation will enhance the general quality of life for both the child and the parent seeking the relocation, including, but not limited to, economic and emotional benefits, and educational opportunities.  Yannas v. Frondistou-Yannas, 395 Mass. 704, 481 N.E.2d 1153, 1158 (1985) (“An evaluation of the best interests of the child requires attention to whether the quality of the child’s life may be improved by the change * * * and the extent to which moving or not moving will affect the emotional, physical, or developmental needs of the child.”);   see also Baures, 770 A.2d at 229 (Court should consider whether the child “will receive educational, health and leisure opportunities at least equal to what is available” in present location.);   Model Act, 15 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. § 405(6).

(3) The probable impact that the relocation will have on the child’s physical, educational, and emotional development.   Any special needs of the child should also be taken into account in considering this factor.   Model Act, 15 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. § 405(2).

(4) The feasibility of preserving the relationship between the non-relocating parent and child through suitable visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.   See Ireland, 717 A.2d at 685;  Tropea, 642 N.Y.S.2d 575, 665 N.E.2d at 151;  Model Act, 15 J. Am. Acad. Matrim. Law. § 405(3).

Certainly, the history and past actions of the relocating parent either to foster the relationship between the child and the other parent, or to frustrate the relationship, would be an important consideration.   So, too, would be the failure of the non-relocating parent to avail himself or herself of available opportunities for visitation.

(5) The existence of extended family or other support systems available to the child in both locations. See, e.g., Hollandsworth, 109 S.W.3d at 664 (the effect of the move on the extended family relationship in the location in which the children and parent will relocate, as well as in the location they presently reside); Baures, 770 A.2d at 230 (considers the effect of the move on extended family relationships in both locations).

(6) Each parent’s reasons for seeking or opposing the relocation.”