## Facts

- Kimberly Rowe (mother) and Donald Franklin (father) were married for four years and had one son.
- In December 1991, during marital conflict and while Franklin remained in the marital home, Rowe moved out with the then three-year-old child and filed for divorce in Ohio; Franklin sought custody.
- While the divorce was pending, the trial court ordered that neither parent remove the child from Ohio unless the court permitted it or the parents agreed.
- Rowe lived in temporary housing until 1992, when she moved to Kentucky for her job with the National Guard; the child lived with her in Kentucky.
- In March 1993, Rowe began a relationship with a man who was married but separated.
- In May 1993, Rowe became pregnant.
- In summer 1993, Rowe began law school and enrolled her son in a private school to cover times when she was in class.
- In September 1993, Rowe moved the trial court for permission to allow the child to establish residence with her in Kentucky.
- Franklin filed a contempt motion based on the Ohio no-removal order; the court denied Rowe’s relocation request and held the contempt issue in abeyance pending a custody investigation.
- Two doctors conducted the custody investigation, found both parents adequate, and recommended custody to Franklin.
- After addressing the statutory best-interests factors and the investigative report, the trial court awarded legal and physical custody to Franklin (who was unemployed) and designated him the residential parent.
- Although the trial court stated the statutory factors favored both parents equally, it grounded its final decision largely on comparisons of the parents’ environments and Rowe’s lifestyle, including her moves, relationship, pregnancy, and demands of work and law school.
- The record included evidence that the child was doing well in Kentucky, with no showing that Rowe’s choices had harmed or were likely to harm him.
- Rowe appealed the custody award.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding custody to the father by using a best-interests analysis that judged the mother’s lawful lifestyle and choices rather than examining the direct or probable effect of parental conduct on the child.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed the custody award and remanded.
- The appellate court held the trial court abused its discretion by relying on an erroneous standard that treated best interests as a contest between parental lifestyles and moral approval, instead of focusing on child impact.
- The appellate court found no evidentiary basis for key findings suggesting the child faced “tremendous adjustment” or that Rowe’s work, schooling, relationship, or pregnancy caused (or was likely to cause) harm to the child.

## Legal Principles

- The “best interests of the child” inquiry centers on the direct or probable effect of parental conduct on the child’s physical, mental, emotional, and social development.
- A custody decision may not rest on nonstatutory moral or social values or a judge’s view of which lawful adult lifestyle is “better,” absent evidence tying the conduct to harm or likely harm to the child.
- Abuse-of-discretion review is deferential, but it does not protect custody determinations based on an incorrect legal standard or factual findings not supported by the record.

## Conclusion

Rowe v. Franklin reversed a custody award where the trial court, despite finding statutory best-interests factors essentially even, shifted custody to the father based mainly on disapproval of the mother’s moves, relationship, pregnancy, and professional and educational commitments, without record evidence that these lawful choices harmed or were likely to harm the child; the case was remanded for a child-centered best-interests analysis based on actual or probable effects.


Rowe v. Franklin, 663 N.E.2d 955 (1995)