Marriage of Wilmot ( 1982 )

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 delivered the Opinion of the
Court.
C a t h e r i n e C o l l e e n Wilmot ( t h e m o t h e r ) a p p e a l s f r o m a n
order of the Yellowstone County District 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 Y e l l o w s t o n e
County D i s t r i c t C o u r t . P u r s u a n t t o a n agreement between t h e
parties, 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 , H a r o l d M. Wilmot, l a t e r
petitioned the t r i a l court t o modify custody. The trial
c o u r t m o d i f i e d c u s t o d y by a w a r d i n g c u s t o d y o f t h r e e o f 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 .
After an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , the 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 j u d g m e n t i n behalf of
the father. The f i n d i n g s a r e c o n f l i c t i n g a n d 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 C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e m e r i t s o f
the issues presented f o r appeal. 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 determinative. In this
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 presented.
The trial c o u r t made conflicting f i n d i n g s based on
e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e f a t h e r and t h e m o t h e r . W e cannot
tell from the findings which evidence the trial court
believed. C o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s c a n n o t form t h e b a s i s f o r
a reviewable order.
F o r e x a m p l e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t made a f i n d i n g b a s e d on
e v i d e n c e 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 w e r e
i n a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e d 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 e n d a n g e r e d by l a c k of c l e a n l i n e s s . . ." Another
finding indicated that, " [ t ]he c h i l d r e n ' s clothing was
adequate and clean." Another finding stated, " [ t ]h a t at
times t h e c h i l d r e n ' s d r e s s h a s b e e n i n a d e q u a t e f o r w e a t h e r
conditions . . ." W e c a n n o t determine t h e adequacy of f i n d -
i n g s o f f a c t u n t i l w e know w h a t 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 e v i d e n c e m u s t a l s o t e l l t h i s C o u r t
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 e v i d e n c e .
There were numerous and conflicting findings made
regarding the mother's habits and activities. The trial
c o u r t gave no clear i n d i c a t i o n of what it a c t u a l l y found
with regard to these activities. Nor can we determine
w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o u n d 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 c u s t o d y 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 w h e t h e r
their environment with their mother seriously 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 statement, "The f a t h e r
testified . . .", i n d i c a t i n g t h a t e a c h of t h e t h r e e f i n d i n g s
was no more that a restatement of evidence presented at
trial.
". . . e v i d e n c e s h o u l d n o t be i n c l u d e d i n
y o u r f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w .
T h e r e s h o u l d be raw f a c t s when t h e t r i a l
j u d g e f e e l s t h e y 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 determination. 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 s h o u l d be u l t i -
m a t e f a c t s . T h e r e s h o u l d be no e v i d e n c e . " 1
San Diego Law Review 1 3 , 33 ( 1 9 6 4 ) .
M e r e l y r e s t a t i n g e v i d e n c e a s i t was p r e s e n t e d w i t h no i n d i -
c a t i o n of the weight given t h a t e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t make a
f i n d i n g of f a c t .
Some o f the evidence presented a t the hearing came
from a home evaluation report done by a court-appointed
s o c i a l worker. Findings referring t o t h a t report begin with
t h e w o r d s , "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 . . ." or,
"The r e p o r t i n d i c a t e s . . ." W c a n n o t t e l l what w e i g h t was
e
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 o f
t h e evidence.
W h a v e e x p r e s s e d d i s a p p r o v a l o f t h e w h o l e s a l e adop-
e
t i o n of p r o p o s e d f i n d i n g s s u b m i t t e d by t h e p a r t i e s . Tomaskie
v. Tomaskie ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mon t . , 625 P.2d 5 3 6 , 38 S t . R e p .
416. Here, t h e f i n d i n g s were s e l e c t e d from b o t h sets of
proposed f i n d i n g s . A l t h o u g h 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 o f t h e f i n d i n g s c h o s e n would h a v e
i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y w e r e i n c o n s i s t e n t and p r o v i d e d 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. 1109, we 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 c o m p r e h e n s i v e 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
w h e t h e r t h e y a r e s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e
presented. "
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 d o 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 .
We remand t h i s c a s e and d i r e c t t h e trial court to
enter findings of fact to resolve the conflicts in the
evidence.
W e concur:
Chief Justice