Rowe v. Franklin
663 N.E.2d 955, 105 Ohio App. 3d 176 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In an initial child custody determination, a court must evaluate a parent's conduct and lifestyle based on whether it has a direct adverse impact on the child, rather than basing the decision on moral judgments or disapproval of the parent's choices.
Facts:
- Kimberly Rowe ('mother') and Donald J. Franklin ('father') were married and had a son, born in February 1988.
- In December 1991, Rowe left the marital home with the child, who remained in her physical custody for the next eighteen months.
- In May 1992, Rowe moved with the child to Versailles, Kentucky, to increase her flying time and income as a part-time pilot for the U.S. Army, while also attending law school.
- During the spring of 1993, while separated from Franklin, Rowe became pregnant by a man she had begun seeing in March of that year.
Procedural Posture:
- Kimberly Rowe filed a complaint for divorce against Donald J. Franklin in a state trial court, along with a motion for temporary residential parenting rights.
- Franklin counterclaimed for divorce and also requested temporary parenting rights.
- The child remained in Rowe's physical custody for eighteen months while the case was pending.
- After a hearing, the trial court designated Franklin as the residential parent and legal guardian, granting him all parental rights.
- Rowe, as appellant, appealed the trial court's custody decision to the Court of Appeals of Ohio.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion in an initial child custody proceeding by removing a child from the parent with de facto custody based on disapproval of that parent's career ambitions, relocation, and nonmarital relationship, without evidence that these choices caused a direct adverse impact on the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Gorman, Presiding Judge
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion when it bases a custody decision on an improper standard that serves as a 'reproval of the mother' rather than focusing on the best interests of the child. The proper standard is the 'direct adverse impact' test, which requires the court to assess whether a parent's lifestyle choices and conduct have a direct or probable harmful effect on the child's physical, mental, emotional, and social development. In this case, the trial court improperly penalized Rowe for her career ambitions, her move to Kentucky for work, and her new relationship and subsequent pregnancy, speculating about future harms ('what ifs') without any evidence that these factors actually had an adverse impact on her son. The court's decision was based on a 'judgmental attitude toward the mother’s life choices' rather than on an objective analysis of the child’s well-being.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that child custody determinations must be grounded in evidence of actual or probable harm to the child, not on a judge's personal moral or social values. It extends the 'direct adverse impact' test, typically used in custody modification cases, to initial custody determinations where one parent has maintained de facto custody for a significant period, promoting stability for the child. The ruling serves as a check on judicial discretion, preventing courts from penalizing parents, particularly mothers, for pursuing careers or having nonmarital relationships that do not demonstrably harm their children.
