### No. 81-345 INTHE 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,Judgepresiding. Counsel of Record: ForAppellant: 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 

### ClerkMr. Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court. Catherine ColleenWilmot (themother) appeals from an order of the Yellowstone County District Court modifying custody. The parties' marriage was dissolved inYellowstone County DistrictCourt. Pursuant toan agreement between the parties, custody of the four minor children was intitially awarded to the mother. The father, Harold M. Wilmot, later petitioned the trial court to modify custody. The trial court modified custody by awarding custody of three of the four minor children tothe fatner. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court made findings and conclusions and entered judgment in behalf of the father. The findings areconflictingand contradictory, leaving no basis for this Court to determine the 

### merits of the issuespresented for appeal. For thatreason, 

### we remand this case to the trial court and we direct the trial court to enter findings of fact that are determinative. In this opinion, we detailwhy the findings of factare insufficient

aspresented. The trial court made conflicting findings based on evidence presented by the father and the mother. We cannot tell from the findings which evidence the trial court believed. Contradictory findings cannot form the basis for

a reviewable order. For example, the trial court made a finding based on evidence presented by the father that "[tlhe children were inadequately provided with clothes and that the children's health was endangered by lack of cleanliness

# ..." Another finding indicated that, "[t] he children's clothing was adequate and clean." Another finding stated, "[t] hat attimes the children's dress has been inadequate for weather conditions

# ..

# ." Wecannotdetermine the adequacy of findingsof factuntil

### we know what those findings are. Findings which restate conflicting evidencemust also

### tell thisCourt how the trialcourt resolved that conflicting evidence. There 

### were numerous and conflicting findings made regarding the mother's habits and activities. The trial court gave no clear indication of what it actually found with regard to these activities. Nor can we determine whether the trial court found those activities to be detrimental to the children. The essence of this custody modification is the best interests of the children and whether their environment with their mother seriously endangers their physical, mental, moral or emotional health. Three findingsbegin with the statement, "The father testified

# .

# ..",indicating that each of the three findings

was no more that a restatement of evidence presented at trial. 

# ".

. 

# . evidence should not be included in your findings of factand conclusions of law. There should be raw facts when the trial judge feels they will be helpful in showing the basis for hisdetermination. There should be intermediate facts; there should be ultimate facts. There should be no evidence." 1 San Diego Law Review 13, 33 (1964). Merely restating evidence as it was presented with no indication of the weight given that evidence does not make a finding of fact. Some of the evidence presented at the hearing came from a home evaluation report done by a court-appointed socialworker. Findings referring tothat report begin with thewords, "The home evaluation report indicates

# . .." or, "The report indicates

# ..." We cannot tellwhat weight wasgiven that report by the trial court. Again, findings must be stated as findings and not asa summary or restatement of theevidence. We have expressed disapproval of the wholesale adoption of proposed findings submitted by theparties. Tomaskie v. Tomaskie (1981), Mon

### t

# . , 625 P.2d 536, 38 St.Rep. 416. 

### Here, the findings were selected from both 

### sets of proposed findings. Although the trialcourt's findingswere not a wholesale adoption of the findings of the prevailing party, a careful analysis of the findings chosen would have indicated that they were inconsistent and provided no basis for review. InJensen v. Jensen (1981), Plont

# . , 629 P.2d 765, 38 St.Hep. 1109, we statedthat: "Our ultimate test for the adequacy of findings of fact is whether they are sufficiently comprehensive and pertinent to the issues to provide a basis for decision, and whether they are supported by the evidence presented.

### " The findings presented by the trial court do not reveal the basic factsupon which the trial court relied. We remand this case and direct the trial court to enter findings of fact to resolve the conflicts in the evidence.We 

### concur:

Chief Justice