Full text
Marriage of Wilmot
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