Sukin v. Sukin
| Decision Date | 27 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 920028-CA,920028-CA |
| Parties | Elaine Rubin SUKIN, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Dean Carey SUKIN, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Ray G. Martineau, Salt Lake City, and Leslie W. Slaugh, Provo, for defendant and appellant.
John T. Anderson and James H. Woodall, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellee.
Before BENCH, GARFF and RUSSON, JJ.
Dean Carey Sukin appeals from the trial court's order awarding custody of the parties' minor child to Elaine Rubin Sukin. We vacate the custody award and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The parties were married in Chicago, Illinois, in November 1986. At the time of their marriage, Dean was in his third year of medical school. In 1988, the parties moved to Salt Lake City in order for Dean to participate in a medical residency program at the University of Utah. The parties' only child, Gabrielle Lyana Sukin, was born on August 22, 1989, in Salt Lake City.
Elaine filed for divorce in March, 1991. A hearing was held in April, wherein custody was awarded to Elaine during the pendency of the proceedings, subject to Dean's reasonable visitation. Another hearing was held in May, wherein Dean was ordered to pay temporary child support, alimony, and attorney fees. By stipulation of the parties, the trial court appointed Dr. Elizabeth B. Stewart to perform a child custody evaluation.
The case was tried in September, 1991. At the end of the trial, the court awarded custody of Gabrielle to Elaine, with reasonable visitation to Dean. Dean appeals the trial court's award of custody.
On appeal, Dean claims (1) that the trial court abused its discretion, in light of the evidence, in awarding custody of Gabrielle to Elaine; (2) that the findings of fact are insufficient to explain the basis for awarding custody of Gabrielle to Elaine; (3) that the trial court abused its discretion when it misinterpreted the law and refused to consider Dr. Stewart's custody evaluation; (4) that the trial court abused its discretion when it improperly considered gender-based preferences in awarding custody; and (5) that on remand this case should be assigned to a different trial judge.
Trial courts are given broad discretion in making child custody awards. Maughan v. Maughan, 770 P.2d 156, 159 (Utah App.1989). The trial court's decision regarding custody will not be upset "absent a showing of an abuse of discretion or manifest injustice." Id. at 159. "However to ensure the court acted within its broad discretion, the facts and reasons for the court's decision must be set forth fully in appropriate findings and conclusions." Painter v. Painter, 752 P.2d 907, 909 (Utah App.1988). The findings must be sufficiently detailed "to ensure that the trial court's discretionary determination was rationally based." Martinez v. Martinez, 728 P.2d 994, 994 (Utah 1986). Roberts v. Roberts, 835 P.2d 193, 195 (Utah App.1992).
Dean argues that the trial court's findings do not adequately explain the basis for the trial court's decision to award custody of Gabrielle to Elaine. We agree.
Both the supreme court and this court have continually instructed our trial courts to provide adequate and detailed findings of fact in making custody determinations.
To ensure that the trial court's custody determination, discretionary as it is, is rationally based, it is essential that the court set forth in its findings of fact not only that it finds one parent to be the better person to care for the child, but also the basic facts which show why that ultimate conclusion is justified. There must be "a logical and legal basis for the ultimate conclusions." Milne Truck Lines v. Public Serv. Comm'n., 720 P.2d 1373, 1378 (Utah 1986). As we stated in Rucker v. Dalton, 598 P.2d 1336, 1338 (Utah 1979):
The importance of complete, accurate and consistent findings of fact in a case tried by a judge is essential to the resolution of dispute under the proper rule of law. To that end the findings should be sufficiently detailed and include enough subsidiary facts to disclose the steps by which the ultimate conclusion on each factual issue was reached.
Proper findings of fact ensure that the ultimate custody award follows logically from, and is supported by, the evidence and the controlling legal principles. Adequate findings are also necessary for this Court to perform its assigned review function.
Smith v. Smith, 726 P.2d 423, 426 (Utah 1986) (citations omitted); accord Roberts, 835 P.2d at 195; Jensen v. Jensen, 775 P.2d 436, 438 (Utah App.1989); Painter, 752 P.2d at 909.
There is no definitive checklist of factors to be used for determining custody since such "factors are highly personal and individual, and do not lend themselves to the means of generalization employed in other areas of the law...." Moon v. Moon, 790 P.2d 52, 54 (Utah App.1990). The trial court must, however, make adequate findings regarding the "best interests of the child and the past conduct and demonstrated moral standards of each of the parties." Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-10(1) (1989). The court must also consider which parent is "most likely to act in the best interests of the child, including allowing the child frequent and continuing contact with the noncustodial parent as the court finds appropriate." Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-10(2) (1989). In order to determine the best interests of the child the court should also consider and, where applicable, make appropriate findings on the following factors:
[T]he preference of the child; keeping siblings together; the relative strength of the child's bond with one or both of the prospective custodians; and, in appropriate cases, the general interest in continuing previously determined custody arrangements where the child is happy and well adjusted.
Hutchison v. Hutchison, 649 P.2d 38, 41 (Utah 1982). The court should also consider, where applicable, the following factors relating to the prospective custodians:
[M]oral character and emotional stability; duration and depth of desire for custody; ability to provide personal rather than surrogate care; significant impairment of ability to function as a parent through drug abuse, excessive drinking, or other cause; reasons for having relinquished custody in the past; religious compatibility with the child; kinship, including, in extraordinary circumstances, stepparent status; and financial condition.
Id. (footnotes omitted). Whenever Roberts, 835 P.2d at 194.
The trial court's entire written findings, with regard to custody, state as follows:
11. Both parties are competent, loving parents and are equally fit and capable of providing Gabrielle with a stable and caring environment.
12. Gabrielle's interests would best be served if plaintiff were awarded her sole physical and legal custody subject to defendant's reasonable rights of visitation....
These conclusory findings clearly do not provide an adequate explanation of the basis for awarding custody to Elaine. Furthermore, the trial court did not make any additional subsidiary findings in open court to support its ultimate finding that it would be in the best interests of the child for custody to be granted to Elaine.
The trial court's inadequate findings in this case constitute reversible error unless the facts in the record are "clear, uncontroverted, and capable of supporting only a finding in favor of the judgment." Kinkella v. Baugh, 660 P.2d 233, 236 (Utah 1983). Elaine agrees that the findings "do not fully detail the many evidentiary predicates supporting a custody award to wife." She argues, however, that the award of custody is overwhelmingly supported by the factual record. We disagree. The record in this case is almost 1300 pages long. It contains abundant testimony from various witnesses supporting the claims of both parties. The facts simply are not clear, uncontroverted, and capable of supporting only a finding in favor of the judgment.
We therefore conclude that the trial court's subsidiary findings are inadequate to support its ultimate finding that it would be in the best interests of the child that custody be granted to Elaine. We vacate the court's custody award and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Having so concluded, we do not reach Dean's claim that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding custody to Elaine.
Dean argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to consider Dr. Stewart's evaluation because she recommended that any sole custody award to Elaine be predicated upon her living in a close geographical proximity to Dean. The trial court made the following statement with regard to Dr. Stewart's recommendation: Dean claims that this statement indicates that the trial court misunderstood Dr. Stewart's recommendation as requiring a restriction to be placed directly on Elaine's right to choose a place to live. He claims that because of this misunderstanding the trial court rejected Dr. Stewart's recommendations. Dean argues, however, that Dr. Stewart did not suggest that a restriction be placed on Elaine's right to choose a place to live, but instead that Elaine not be granted custody if she does not live close to Dean.
We recognize that an award of custody can be predicated upon requiring the custodial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sigg v. Sigg
...P.2d 1036, 1038 (Utah App.1994). A trial judge's award of custody and support is also reviewed for abuse of discretion. Sukin v. Sukin, 842 P.2d 922, 923 (Utah App.1992). A trial court's award of attorney fees, costs and expert witness fees will not be overturned absent an abuse of discreti......
-
R.B. v. L.B.
...(remanding for additional findings because the trial court rejected a recommendation without explanation); [339 P.3d 145] Sukin v. Sukin, 842 P.2d 922, 925–26 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (same). ¶ 19 Here, the district court considered the evaluator's findings and recommendations but declined to ado......
-
Barnes v. Barnes
...I. CUSTODY A. Standard of Review "Trial courts are given broad discretion in making child custody awards." Sukin v. Sukin, 842 P.2d 922, 923 (Utah App.1992) (citing Maughan v. Maughan, 770 P.2d 156, 159 (Utah App.1989)). "The trial court's decision regarding custody will not be upset 'absen......
-
R.B. v. L.B.
...(remanding for additional findings because the trial court rejected a recommendation without explanation); 339 P.3d 145Sukin v. Sukin, 842 P.2d 922, 925–26 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (same).¶ 19 Here, the district court considered the evaluator's findings and recommendations but declined to adopt t......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review
...11 (Utah App. 1994); Ashcroft v. Industrial Comm'n, 855 P.2d 267, 268 (Utah App.), cert. denied, 868 P.2d 95 (Utah 1993); Sukin v. Sukin, 842 P.2d 922, 926 (Utah App. 1992). If appellants have failed to properly preserve an issue for appeal, they have waived that issue. State v. Brown, 856 ......
-
Custody and Visitation Rights in Utah
...[10]Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-10(1) (Supp. 1994). [11]Id. §30-3-10(2). [12]Nielson v. Nielson, 652 P.2d 1323 (Utah 1982). [13]Sukin v. Sukin, 842 P.2d 922 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). [14]Utah Code Ann. § 30-3-32(2)(a) & (b) (Supp. 1994). [15]Id. § 30-3-35(1). [16]Id. § 30-3-33(4). [17]Id. § 30-3-33(7......