Ms. Williams's first argument on appeal is that the Family Court erred in exercising jurisdiction over this matter because the hearing justice failed to first make a finding that a change in circumstances had taken place subsequent to the point in time when the parties reached an agreement about custody of Dakota. In making this argument, Ms. Williams relies upon the following language from this Court's opinion in the case of Parrillo v. Parrillo, 554 A.2d 1043 (R.I. 1989): "The Family Court retains jurisdiction over the custody of the minor children of divorced parents regardless of whether custody was initially established by judicial decree or agreement of the parents.

Neither Samantha's increase in age, nor the wife's living with her fiancé were sufficient to require a modification of the earlier custody award. Similarly, unlike Parrillo v. Parrillo, 554 A.2d 1043 (R.I. 1989), in which this Court upheld the Family Court justice's prohibition of unrelated male overnight visitors at the wife's residence while her children were present, in this case, the wife intended to marry her fiancé. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented that the wife's relationship was "not conducive to [the daughter's] general well-being, at least in terms of [the daughter's] psychological welfare."

Moreover, before a final custody decree can be reopened or amended, the moving party must establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the conditions or circumstances existing at the time the decree was entered have so changed that it should be modified in the interest of the children's welfare. See Parrillo v. Parrillo, 554 A.2d 1043, 1044-45 (R.I. 1989). Until and unless the moving party meets this burden, the prior custody award should remain intact.

When the court told Judith R. to either show the court that she and the man she was cohabiting with intended to commit to each other and provide a sound foundation for Melissa or the child would be given to her father, Judith R., like the loving mother before Solomon, should have ascertained if the man she was living with intended to make a home for his children and her child through marriage. If not, she should have taken her daughter out of that environment to one where she, as a mother, could show her child true commitment.See also Parrillo v. Parrillo, 554 A.2d 1043 (R.I. 1989), where the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that the family court could prohibit a mother from spending the night with her cohabitant when her children were present. See Thomas v. LaRosa, 184 W. Va. 374, 400 S.E.2d 809 (1990), where this Court ruled that express or implied agreements between adult non-marital partners for future support are not enforceable.