Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Rowe v. Franklin

Court of Appeals of Ohio
663 N.E.2d 955 (1995)


Facts

Kimberly Rowe (plaintiff) and Donald Franklin (defendant) were married for four years and had a son. In order to procure a divorce when Franklin refused to leave the marital home, Rowe moved out with the then three-year-old child in December 1991. While the divorce proceedings were pending, the court ordered that neither parent remove the child from Ohio unless permitted by the court or agreed to by the parents. Rowe was forced to seek temporary housing until 1992, when she moved to Kentucky for her job with the National Guard. The child apparently went with her. In March 1993, Rowe began seeing a man who was married but separated. In May 1993, she became pregnant. In the summer, she began law school classes and enrolled her son in a private school for the times that she would be in class. In September, she moved the trial court to allow the child to establish residency with her in Kentucky. Franklin moved the court to find Rowe in contempt. The court denied Rowe’s motion and held the contempt motion in abeyance pending completion of a custody investigation. The court eventually awarded physical and legal custody to Franklin, who was unemployed. Although the statutory factors reviewed by the court favored both parents equally, the court’s ultimate decision was based on a comparison between the environments and lifestyles of the parents. The court concluded that the child had stronger ties to his Ohio hometown despite evidence that he was thriving in Kentucky. The court also questioned Rowe’s stability on account of her frequent moves and romantic relationship. Finally, the court suggested that Rowe’s focus on her career and education was shortchanging the child’s well-being. Despite the court’s conclusions, there was no evidence that Rowe’s actions had detrimentally impacted the child. Rowe appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Gorman, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 218,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.