Martinez v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 03 November 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 860264,860264 |
| Citation | 728 P.2d 994 |
| Parties | Paul George MARTINEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Carolyn K. MARTINEZ, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
David S. Dolowitz, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.
Steven Kuhnhausen, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant Carolyn K. Martinez appeals that portion of the divorce decree awarding plaintiff custody of their four-year-old daughter. We follow our recent decision in Smith v. Smith, 726 P.2d 423 (Utah 1986), and remand the case to the district court for entry of additional written findings of fact that adequately support the child custody award.
At the divorce trial, both parties testified as to their desires and abilities to provide for their daughter. The testimony of other witnesses and experts' evaluations were also before the trial court. Following trial, the district judge issued a March 4, 1986 memorandum decision wherein he wrote that "custody of the minor child ... is awarded to the plaintiff with reasonable visitation to the defendant." Plaintiff's counsel was instructed to prepare findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a decree consistent with the court's ruling. With regard to the custody issue, the findings of fact and conclusions of law, prepared by counsel and entered by the court, merely provided:
4. During the course of the marriage the parties had born as their issue one minor child.... The Court finds that Plaintiff is a fit and proper person to be awarded the care, custody and control of said minor child, subject to Defendant's reasonable rights of visitation.
No finding was made as to the relative parenting abilities of the parties or the best interests of the child. Defendant argues that this finding alone is insufficient to support the custody award or to permit meaningful review on appeal. We agree. Plaintiff rejoins that his evidence at trial adequately supports the custody determination. But, because there is nothing before us in the findings or the record to indicate what evidence or factors the trial court considered in its award or whether the award was made "in the best interests" of the child, we cannot meaningfully review the final decree. The fact that we may review the evidence and make our own findings in equity matters cannot serve as an excuse for the failure below to furnish adequate findings to ensure that the trial court's discretionary determination was rationally based.
As we stated in Smith v. Smith,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. Barnes
...detailed 'to ensure that the trial court's discretionary determination was rationally based.' " Id. (quoting Martinez v. Martinez, 728 P.2d 994, 994 (Utah 1986)). This allows us, in reviewing a custody determination, to make sure the determination flows logically from both the evidence and ......
-
Roberts v. Roberts
..." 'that the trial court's discretionary determination was rationally based.' " Painter, 752 P.2d at 909 (quoting Martinez v. Martinez, 728 P.2d 994, 994 (Utah 1986)). Specificity of findings is particularly important in custody determinations. This is so because the issues involved are high......
-
Hardy v. Hardy
...muster when the custody award is challenged and an abuse of the trial court's discretion is urged on appeal." Martinez v. Martinez, 728 P.2d 994, 995 (Utah 1986) (per curiam). The trial court should state those factors it considered in making its determination, such as the needs of the chil......
-
Stevens v. Stevens
...that the trial court's discretionary determination of the alimony and child support awards was rationally based. 2 See Martinez v. Martinez, 728 P.2d 994 (Utah 1986); see also Davis v. Davis, 749 P.2d 647, 648 (Utah We therefore vacate those portions of the judgment pertaining to alimony an......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review
...the facts and reasons for the court's decision must be set forth fully in appropriate findings and conclusions. Martinez v. Martinez, 728 P.2d 994, 995 (Utah 1986); Barnes v. Barnes, 857 P.2d 257, 260-62 (Utah App. 1993); Sukin v. Sukin, 842 P.2d 922, 924 (Utah App. 1992); Roberts v. Robert......
-
Family Law Update 1988
...court thus examined was upheld as complying with the requirements of Smith v. Smith, 726 P.2d 423 (Utah 1986) and Martinez v. Martinez, 728 P.2d 994 (Utah 1986), which decisions presented the requirement that there must be fully articulated findings to support a custody award when it is to ......