Opinion ID: 901997
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Absence of Findings of Fact

Text: [¶ 7.] Fanning argues the circuit court erred by not entering findings of fact to support its conclusion that a protection order was authorized by SDCL 25-10-5. [1] We have previously stated that [i]t is well-settled law that it is the trial court's duty to make required findings of fact, and the failure to do so constitutes reversible error. Grode v. Grode, 1996 SD 15, ¶ 29, 543 N.W.2d 795, 803 (citations omitted). Failing to enter findings of fact is reversible error because [w]e cannot meaningfully review the trial court decision without the trial court's reasons for ruling the way it did. The standard of review requires that we first determine whether the findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Without findings of fact, there is no way to determine the basis for the trial court's conclusions that [the protection order should have been granted] or whether those findings were clearly erroneous. Secondly, we are to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in light of those findings in granting the protection order. Goeden v. Daum, 2003 SD 91, ¶ 7, 668 N.W.2d 108, 110-11 (citations omitted). [¶ 8.] Although the circuit court generally recited that the elements of a protection order had been shown, i.e., jurisdiction, venue, status as a family or household member, and proper notice and opportunity to be heard, the circuit court merely concluded that domestic abuse had occurred. No findings, oral or written, support that conclusion. [2] Mere concern about an ongoing and inconclusive police investigation does not support a finding of abuse. The circuit court's general statements did not indicate which version of the evidence [it] believed or indicate how the evidence met the statutory elements of [domestic abuse] to permit the issuance of the protection order. Goeden, 2003 SD 91, ¶ 8, 668 N.W.2d at 111. [3] See Judstra v. Donelan, 2006 SD 32, 712 N.W.2d 866 (holding that the circuit court's failure to enter findings of fact in a protection order case stating which version of the evidence was believed constituted reversible error). Therefore, in this case, the circuit court erred by not entering findings of fact and conclusions of law that would have permitted a meaningful review of whether the protection order was appropriately granted. Goeden, 2003 SD 91, ¶ 8, 668 N.W.2d at 111. [4]