Court Opinion

ID: 9508077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:28:03.274052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:27.679166
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GULBRANDSON,
specially concurring:
The trial judge, in his order of June 14, 1984, in finding of fact No. 3, found that “the parties in their proposed findings both agree that respondent should be the custodial parent.” However, after the proposed findings had been filed, the petitioner requested on January 23, 1984, and the trial court ordered on February 16, 1984, a home study investigation. Counsel for appellant alleges that he did not re*216ceive a copy of the home study report, dated May 2, 1984, as required by section 40-4-215(3),MCA. Because the record does not disclose whether the trial judge considered the report, I concur in the remand on the custody issue. In my view this issue has arisen because the petitioner’s request for an investigative report was made long after the custody hearing was held, while the statute involved anticipates a report prior to the custody hearing.
The home study report contained only general observations, without recommendations as to custody, and, in my view, would not override the trial court’s findings of fact No. 3. I would, therefore, only require a statement by the trial judge that the home study report had in fact been considered by him in deciding the custody issue.