Title: MARRIAGE OF WILMOT

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 81-345 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: CATHERINE COLLEEN WILP..IOT, Petitioner and Appellant, and HAROLD M. WILM.OT, Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable William J. Speare, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Keefer, Roybal, Hanson, Stacey and Jarussi, Billinqs, Montana For Respondent: Harold M. Wilmot, Pro Se, Huntley, Montana Craig R. Buehler, Lewistown, Montana Submitted on briefs: March 4, 1982 Decided: August 19, 1982 . r Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. C a t h e r i n e C o l l e e n Wilmot ( t h e mother) a p p e a l s from an o r d e r of t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t Court modifying custody. The p a r t i e s ' m a r r i a g e was d i s s o l v e d i n Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t Court. P u r s u a n t t o an agreement between t h e p a r t i e s , c u s t o d y of t h e f o u r minor c h i l d r e n was i n t i t i a l l y awarded t o t h e mother. The f a t h e r , Harold M. Wilmot, l a t e r p e t i t i o n e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o modify custody. The t r i a l c o u r t modified c u s t o d y by awarding custody of t h r e e of t h e f o u r minor c h i l d r e n t o t h e f a t n e r . A f t e r an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , t h e t r i a l c o u r t made f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s and e n t e r e d judgment i n b e h a l f of t h e f a t h e r . The f i n d i n g s a r e c o n f l i c t i n g and c o n t r a d i c t o r y , l e a v i n g no b a s i s f o r t h i s Court t o d e t e r m i n e t h e merits of t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r a p p e a l . For t h a t r e a s o n , w e remand t h i s c a s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t and we d i r e c t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r f i n d i n g s of f a c t t h a t a r e d e t e r m i n a t i v e . I n t h i s o p i n i o n , we d e t a i l why t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t a s p r e s e n t e d . The t r i a l c o u r t made c o n f l i c t i n g f i n d i n g s based on evidence p r e s e n t e d by t h e f a t h e r and t h e mother. W e c a n n o t t e l l from t h e f i n d i n g s which e v i d e n c e t h e t r i a l c o u r t b e l i e v e d . C o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s cannot form t h e b a s i s f o r a reviewable o r d e r . For example, t h e t r i a l c o u r t made a f i n d i n g based on evidence p r e s e n t e d by t h e f a t h e r t h a t " [ t l h e c h i l d r e n were i n a d e q u a t e l y provided w i t h c l o t h e s and t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n ' s h e a l t h was endangered by l a c k of c l e a n l i n e s s . . ." Another f i n d i n g i n d i c a t e d t h a t , " [ t ] h e c h i l d r e n ' s c l o t h i n g was adequate and c l e a n . " Another f i n d i n g s t a t e d , " [ t ] h a t a t times t h e c h i l d r e n ' s d r e s s h a s been i n a d e q u a t e f o r weather c o n d i t i o n s . . ." W e c a n n o t determine t h e adequacy of f i n d - i n g s of f a c t u n t i l w e know what t h o s e f i n d i n g s a r e . F i n d i n g s which r e s t a t e c o n f l i c t i n g evidence must a l s o t e l l t h i s Court how t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e s o l v e d t h a t c o n f l i c t i n g evidence. There were numerous and c o n f l i c t i n g f i n d i n g s made r e g a r d i n g t h e m o t h e r ' s h a b i t s and a c t i v i t i e s . The t r i a l c o u r t gave no c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n of what it a c t u a l l y found w i t h regard t o t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s . Nor can w e determine whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t found t h o s e a c t i v i t i e s t o be d e t r i - mental t o t h e c h i l d r e n . The e s s e n c e of t h i s custody modi- f i c a t i o n is t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of t h e c h i l d r e n and whether t h e i r environment with t h e i r mother s e r i o u s l y endangers t h e i r p h y s i c a l , mental, moral or emotional h e a l t h . Three f i n d i n g s begin with t h e s t a t e m e n t , "The f a t h e r t e s t i f i e d . . .", i n d i c a t i n g t h a t each of t h e t h r e e f i n d i n g s was no more t h a t a r e s t a t e m e n t of evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l . ". . . evidence should n o t be included i n your f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. There should be raw f a c t s when t h e t r i a l judge f e e l s they w i l l be h e l p f u l i n showing t h e b a s i s f o r h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n . There should be i n t e r m e d i a t e f a c t s ; t h e r e should be u l t i - mate f a c t s . There should be no evidence." 1 San Diego Law Review 13, 33 ( 1 9 6 4 ) . Merely r e s t a t i n g evidence a s it was p r e s e n t e d with no i n d i - c a t i o n of t h e weight g i v e n t h a t evidence does n o t make a f i n d i n g of f a c t . Some of t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d a t t h e h e a r i n g came from a home e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t done by a court-appointed s o c i a l worker. F i n d i n g s r e f e r r i n g t o t h a t r e p o r t b e g i n w i t h t h e words, "The home e v a l u a t i o n r e p o r t i n d i c a t e s . . ." o r , "The r e p o r t i n d i c a t e s . . ." W e c a n n o t t e l l what weight was g i v e n t h a t r e p o r t by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Again, f i n d i n g s must be s t a t e d a s f i n d i n g s and n o t a s a summary o r r e s t a t e m e n t of t h e e v i d e n c e . W e have e x p r e s s e d d i s a p p r o v a l of t h e wholesale adop- t i o n of proposed f i n d i n g s submitted by t h e p a r t i e s . Tomaskie v. Tomaskie ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mon t . , 625 P.2d 536, 38 St.Rep. 416. Here, t h e f i n d i n g s were s e l e c t e d from both sets of proposed f i n d i n g s . Although t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s were n o t a w h o l e s a l e a d o p t i o n of t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , a c a r e f u l a n a l y s i s of t h e f i n d i n g s chosen would have i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y were i n c o n s i s t e n t and provided no b a s i s f o r review. I n J e n s e n v. J e n s e n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Plont . , 629 P.2d 765, 38 St.Hep. 1 1 0 9 , w e s t a t e d t h a t : "Our u l t i m a t e t e s t f o r t h e a d e q u a c y o f f i n d i n g s of f a c t is whether t h e y a r e s u f f i - c i e n t l y comprehensive and p e r t i n e n t t o t h e i s s u e s t o p r o v i d e a b a s i s f o r d e c i s i o n , and whether t h e y a r e supported by t h e evidence p r e s e n t e d . " The f i n d i n g s p r e s e n t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t do n o t r e v e a l t h e b a s i c f a c t s upon which t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e l i e d . W e remand t h i s c a s e and d i r e c t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o e n t e r f i n d i n g s of f a c t t o r e s o l v e t h e c o n f l i c t s i n t h e evidence. We concur: Chief Justice