PROVIDENCE — The Rhode Island Supreme Court has vacated a Family Court ruling that placed the infant daughter of a Narragansett Indian in the care of the state Department of Children, Youth and Families nearly two years ago.

The high court, in a ruling issued Tuesday, ordered a new trial in Family Court within the next 90 days.

The custody case involves Jackie Robinson, a Narragansett Indian, who fathered a girl, Tameka, on Oct. 4, 2007. At the time, Robinson was living with Eleanor Wilson and they were raising their four children together. He had been with Wilson for more than eight years and he considered her his common-law wife.

Robinson had an affair with another woman which resulted in Tameka’s conception.

Tameka’s mother, who was already supporting four children of her own, placed the baby with a social service agency. At about the same time, Wilson, who learned of Robinson’s extramarital affair, ordered him out of her house.

“This apparent lack of stable housing prevented Tameka’s placement with him, and on October 19, 2007, DCYF filed a petition against both parents citing allegations of [drug] dependency and neglect,” Justice Paul A. Suttell wrote for the court.

The Family Court granted the DCYF temporary custody and Tameka was placed in foster care. Still, Robinson and Wilson, his common-in-law wife and their four children, regularly visited the child.

A trial on the DCYF petition was held on March 20, 2008. Robinson told the court that he was still living with Wilson and he had undergone substance-abuse counseling. The trial judge questioned Robinson’s financial resources, citing his testimony that he had lost his job as a dishwasher because a car accident had left him partially disabled.

Robinson’s lawyer argued that the DCYF had failed to establish “dependency by clear and convincing evidence.” He also accused the department of failing to submit a qualified expert’s testimony that custody of Tameka by Robinson would result in serious emotional or physical hardship to the child.

The judge placed Tameka in DCYF custody.

That led to Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling.

Under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, the court ruled, Robinson was entitled to have an expert witness testify on his behalf.

“In the case before us, we simply cannot say that the failure to comply with the dictates of the Indian Child Welfare Act was harmless error,” Suttell wrote.

“We first note that DCYF failed to present any evidence that custody and placement with Mr. Robinson would likely result in serious emotional or physical harm to Tameka.”

Suttell also wrote that Robinson was living with Wilson and the argument of adequate housing was not relevant.

bmalinow@projo.com