Opinion ID: 1250040
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the court's factual findings

Text: The third issue William raises on appeal is whether the trial court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous. When this Court reviews a trial court's findings of fact, the guiding standard is whether the findings are clearly erroneous; that is, whether they are supported by substantial, competent evidence. I.R.C.P. 52(a); Sun Valley Shamrock Resources, Inc. v. Travelers Leasing Corp., 118 Idaho 116, 794 P.2d 1389 (1990). This is so even if there is some evidence which is conflicting. Id. The evidence presented by the parties at the September 18, 1989, protection order proceeding in front of Judge Harden may be summarized: Lucille testified that William returned Tolen and Elizabeth to her home in Sandpoint, Idaho, at approximately 9:00 p.m. on August 11, 1989, after having had them since August 5, 1989. Twenty minutes after their return, she noticed bruises on her son Tolen's bottom and hip area, and immediately phoned Dr. James Weber. She also took photographs of the bruised area. Tolen told her that Daddy had given him the bruises. Dr. James Weber testified that Lucille phoned him on the evening of August 11, to inform him of Tolen's bruises, and the next morning, August 12, he examined Tolen. Dr. Weber observed nine bruises on Tolen's left thigh and buttock that, with reasonable medical certainty, appeared to be approximately 48 hours old. According to Dr. Weber, the bruises were consistent with a severe spanking, were likely inflicted with something round such as a belt buckle, and were not consistent with an accidental fall from a jungle gym, as William alleged. On cross-examination, he stated that the bruises could have occurred as recently as ten to twelve hours prior to his evaluation. Also on cross-examination, Dr. Weber stated that it was possible that the bruises could have occurred from some force other than a spanking. Janet Boden, a Child Protection Social Worker for the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, testified that when she questioned Tolen about how he received the bruises, he replied, Daddy whammed me. William testified that he did not spank Tolen during his stay other than giving him a swat or pat on the butt, and upon nightly examination of the children, he observed only a slight bruise on Tolen, which he believed had probably occurred during play. Jovena Gordon, William's girlfriend at the time of Tolen's visit, testified that she was either with Tolen, or within earshot of him almost constantly during the visitation week and never heard Tolen yell or cry. She also testified that a spanking episode William testified to was indeed a tap on the seat, and when Tolen left to return home to his mother, he gave no indication of being in pain. William had additional witnesses testify that he was, if anything, too lenient in punishing his children, and minutes before returning to his mother's home, Tolen was playing rough and not complaining of any pain in his buttocks or thighs. Based upon the foregoing evidence, Judge Harden found that the evidence did not support a finding that Tolen's injuries had been inflicted by Lucille, but rather by William. He also found that the injuries were not consistent with William's explanation that they had occurred while Tolen was at play, but were consistent with a severe spanking. The credibility and weight to be given evidence is in the province of the trier of fact. Pointner v. Johnson, 107 Idaho 1014, 695 P.2d 399 (1985). Judge Harden had the best opportunity to assess witness demeanor, and we will not substitute our opinion of witness credibility for that of the trial court. Rueth v. State, 103 Idaho 74, 644 P.2d 1333 (1982). Because substantial and competent evidence supports the lower court's factual findings, they are not clearly erroneous and we will not disturb them.