Vries v. Gaudiana

318 A.3d 1035

Philippe L. de VRIES

v.Anthony L. GAUDIANA, Jr.

No. 2023-98-Appeal., No. 2023-109-Appeal.

(P 22-2656M)

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

August 1, 2024

Providence County Family Court, Associate Justice Richard A. Merola

David J. Strachman, Esq., for Petitioner.

Edward C. Roy, Jr., Esq., for Respondent.

Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

OPINION

Justice Lynch Prata, for the Court.

In these consolidated appeals, the petitioner, Philippe L. de Vries, appeals from a final order of the Family Court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the respondent, Anthony L. Gaudiana, Jr. The petitioner contends that the hearing justice erred in ruling that the Rhode Island Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (specifically G.L. 1956 § 15-8.1-501) superseded the petitioner’s common law claims for parentage and in dismissing his miscellaneous petition "on the basis of res judicata." The respondent cross-appeals from the entry of an order denying his motion for attorneys’ fees. He asserts that the hearing justice erred in ruling that his motion for attorneys’ fees was not timely and that the hearing justice failed to conduct a hearing on his motion for attorneys’ fees. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the orders of the Family Court.

Facts

[1] The instant case commenced on June 9, 2022, when petitioner filed a miscellaneous petition in the Family Court concerning a child whose parents are respondent and the late Christine Hasselbrock.¹ The petitioner first met Ms. Has- selbrock in 1998 at Brown University, where he was working on a research project and where Ms. Hasselbrock was "employed as a temporary clerical worker on the project." The petitioner was twenty- five years older than Ms. Hasselbrock and upon becoming "casual acquaintances," he began to provide financial assistance to her as well as serving "as a mentor and surrogate parent" to her for twenty-three years.² The petitioner had a "platonic relationship" with Ms. Hasselbrock, and she "often described [him] as her ‘Uncle’ to acquaintances."

In 2013 petitioner, who resided in New Hampshire, purchased a house in Scituate, Rhode Island (the Scituate house), so that Ms. Hasselbrock would "have a place to live." The petitioner allowed Ms. Hasselbrock to live in the house "rent free and [he] paid her utilities." In 2015 Ms. Hasselbrock informed petitioner that "she was pregnant as a result of a relationship with [respondent] * * *." Ms. Hasselbrock informed petitioner that respondent did not have a full-time job, that he had two children from a previous marriage, and that he was not able to financially support the child. On June 14, 2015, Ms. Hasselbrock gave birth to a son, the child at issue in this case, and did not put respondent’s name on the birth certificate. Upon the birth of the child, petitioner "provided sufficient resources" to Ms. Hasselbrock—providing for diapers, a car seat, cribs, and formula, as well as funding for childhood development programs. The petitioner prohibited respondent from living at the Scituate house; nevertheless, on several of petitioner’s visits, he discovered that respondent was on the property.

The petitioner regularly visited Ms. Hasselbrock and her son at the Scituate house and stayed there overnight. The petitioner read books to the child, played with him, and went on outings with him. He occasionally called the child and spoke with Ms. Hasselbrock daily. The petitioner celebrated some holidays and birthdays with Ms. Hasselbrock and the child. As the child grew older, petitioner "continued to purchase provisions" for Ms. Hasselbrock and paid the child’s tuition at a private school.

Around March 2018, Ms. Hasselbrock was diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer. The petitioner paid for her medical expenses, drove her to doctors’ appointments, and communicated with her doctors. On February 1, 2021, he moved to Little Compton, Rhode Island, to be closer to Ms. Hasselbrock and the child. Sadly, Ms. Hasselbrock passed away on February 19, 2021.

When petitioner visited the Scituate house after Ms. Hasselbrock’s death, he discovered that respondent had created a bedroom in the basement, added a "gun firing range" on the property, "removed many items from the house that did not belong to him," and made other alterations to the house. The respondent "changed the combination to the front door lock on [petitioner’s] house, replaced the garage door opener so that [petitioner] could not enter the house and would not allow [petitioner] to enter the house without 48 hour written notice." On April 22, 2021, petitioner evicted respondent, and consequently the child, from the Scituate house. The respondent has not allowed petitioner to see the child since that time.

Travel

[2, 3] In October 2021, petitioner filed a prior action, an amended verified petition that asserted several claims including a statutory claim to be declared a de facto parent of the child pursuant to § 15-8.1-501.³ The amended verified petition also asserted several related common law claims including a claim for declaratory relief stating that petitioner was the child’s de facto parent under the common law. On January 26, 2022, the first hearing justice ruled on respondent’s motion to dismiss the first action. She questioned whether petitioner had standing to bring the action, as he had never resided with the child.⁴ Ultimately, she concluded that petitioner’s verified petition should be dismissed due to lack of standing. The first hearing justice added that her role was limited to ruling only upon the statutory de facto parentage claim under § 15-8.1-501. The first hearing justice indicated that, if there were an alternative theory that petitioner would like to advance with respect to his verified petition, then that "would be heard on the miscellaneous calendar." Specifically, the first hearing justice stated:

"[A]nything else that would be among the other common law claims that you have described, you are certainly not precluded from pursuing them. It’s just that I have not been given that assignment, and it is the Chief [Judge] who assigns the category of cases that each of us hear. So of course you’re not precluded. I think that you are well able * * * to proceed elsewhere on those common law claims, and of course you have every right to do so. * * * He’s not precluded from proceeding on the miscellaneous calendar if you feel that he has bona fide claims under the common law * * *." (Emphasis added.)

Thus, the first hearing justice dismissed the amended verified petition and directed petitioner to refile his common law claims.

[4] On June 9, 2022, petitioner filed the present action in Family Court, entitled "Miscellaneous Petition for Declaratory and Other Relief."⁵ In the new miscellaneous petition, petitioner requested a declaratory judgment that, pursuant to the common law of Rhode Island, he was a "de facto parent, an unrelated caregiver, a de facto grandparent, and/or a de facto relative of [the child]." Alternatively, petitioner sought a declaratory judgment that he stood "in loco parentis or in loco grandparentis to" the child or, that he was a parent by estoppel of the child. The petitioner further sought visitation with the child, appointment of a guardian ad litem, and a request for a referral to DCYF with respect to respondent’s conduct.⁶

[5] The respondent subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, The respondent contended that petitioner did not have standing to bring the action and that the Family Court did not have jurisdiction over the claims set forth in the miscellaneous petition. The respondent further contended (1) that the "new Uniform Parentage Act supersedes, and occupies the entire space with regard to de facto parenthood in Rhode Island"; and (2) that "petitioner does not allege to meet the criteria necessary to be considered a ‘common law de facto parent.’ "⁷

On November 10, 2022, the second hearing justice issued a decision on the motion to dismiss without hearing oral argument. He noted that the first hearing justice had dismissed petitioner’s UPA claim but that she had not decided petitioner’s common law claims. He further stated he was treating respondent’s motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. Nevertheless, he clarified that the documents he had reviewed consisted of the pleadings and "what ha[d] already been decided by [the first hearing justice]."

Turning to the merits, the second hearing justice determined that he was "unable to find that the common law right would [supersede] the Parentage Act" as it pertains to de facto parentage. Specifically, he found that the "Parentage Act is the controlling law of the land in the State of Rhode Island as it pertains to petitions * * * claiming that a party is, in fact, a de facto parent." Regarding petitioner’s other claims, the second hearing justice was "unable to determine that the plaintiff is claiming any right that is not contemplated by the [UPA]." He reasoned that, because the claims in the case before him were the same as those alleged in the previous case and because the "controversy before [the court] falls under the Act," the claims should be dismissed on the basis of res judicata. The second hearing justice further concluded that he would not entertain the other counts in petitioner’s miscellaneous petition given that he did not feel they were proper claims. He therefore found that there were no justiciable issues before him and determined that issuing declaratory relief would thus be improper.

Thereafter, respondent filed a motion for attorneys’ fees. In the motion, respondent asserted that petitioner’s two actions were filed solely to harass respondent and to hurt him financially. He alleged that the "frivolous Complaints and Motions" had caused him to incur $7,500 in attorneys’ fees. On February 22, 2023, a decision was issued on respondent’s motion for attorneys’ fees. With respect to that motion, the second hearing justice stated:

...