Roe v. Conn
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
417 F. Supp. 769 (1976)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Margaret Wambles (plaintiff), a white woman, lived in a primarily black neighborhood with her son, Richard Roe (plaintiff), as well as a black man to whom Wambles was not married. Cecil Coppage (defendant), a white man, claimed to be Roe’s father and was concerned with Roe’s living situation. Coppage called Officer L. T. Conn (defendant) at the Montgomery Police Department and asserted that Roe might be subject to neglect and should be removed from Wambles’s home. Conn inspected Wambles’s home and found the home to be relatively clean and stocked with sufficient food. Conn also found Roe to be in fairly good physical condition with no signs of abuse. Despite these findings, however, Conn received a pickup order and, approximately one hour later, returned to remove Roe from Wambles’s home. The order was based on an Alabama statute permitting the immediate removal of a child if the child’s welfare required such removal. The statute did not require exigent circumstances or notice and a hearing prior to removal. A hearing was held on the matter 38 days after Roe was removed. At the hearing, the Family Court of Montgomery County granted Coppage temporary custody of Roe. Wambles filed a petition for custody of Roe. The family court denied the petition. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, and Wambles appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
