ROWE V. FRANKLIN 663 N.E.2d 955 (1995) CASE BRIEF

ROWE V. FRANKLIN

663 N.E.2d 955 (1995)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Kimberly Rowe (M) appealed a judgment, which designated Donald Franklin (F) the residential parent and legal guardian of their minor child.

FACTS: The parties were married on July 25, 1987. On February 20, 1988, their son was born. In December of 1991, the M left the marital residence with the child and filed a complaint for divorce and a motion for temporary residential parenting rights and support. F counterclaimed for divorce and also requested temporary parenting rights and support. The child remained in M's custody pending a determination by the court. Without F's knowledge, M moved to Versailles, Kentucky, for her job as a part-time pilot for the U.S. Army so she could increase her flying time and earn more money. F was also attending law school. On May 13, 1992, M filed a notice of relocation providing her new address. F was an ironworker, was unemployed during that summer. M had applied to take classes through the University of Kentucky Law School in July and had become pregnant sometime in May by a man whom she had begun seeing in March, and who was married but separated from his wife. M enrolled her son in a private school for the times she would attend law school classes. F filed an emergency motion for contempt and for return of the child to Ohio. The trial court allowed the child to remain with M until the completion of a previously ordered custody investigation. M had applied to take classes through the University of Kentucky Law School in July and had become pregnant sometime in May by a man whom she had begun seeing in March, and who was married but separated from his wife. M enrolled her son in a private school for the times she would attend law school classes. F filed an emergency motion for contempt and for return of the child to Ohio. The trial court allowed the child to remain with M until the completion of a previously ordered custody investigation. A psychological evaluation was completed, and a parenting specialist completed her report, and M requested another doctor to review and evaluate the reports. Unsurprisingly, both parents were found adequate but each expert recommended a different parent for sole custody. The trial court removed custody from M and allocated full parental rights of the five-year-old child to F. M appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner