Opinion
Case No. 20030033-CA.
Filed September 18, 2003. (Not For Official Publication)
Appeal from the Third District Juvenile, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable Andrew A. Valdez.
John E. Laherty, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Mark L. Shurtleff and John M. Peterson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Martha Pierce and Annette T. Jan, Salt Lake City, Guardians Ad Litem.
Before Judges Bench, Greenwood, and Orme.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Appellant T.G. (Mother) claims the trial court's written findings of fact supporting a permanency order are inadequate to support appellate review. She seeks a remand for entry of more detailed factual findings.See Armed Forces Ins. Exch. v. Harrison, 2003 UT 14, ¶ 28, 70 P.3d 35 (stating appellate court may order trial court to supplement or complete findings to conform to issues presented); see also Utah R.App.P. 30(a). We conclude there is no basis for a remand and therefore affirm.
To provide meaningful appellate review, the trial court's findings must be sufficiently detailed and "include enough subsidiary facts to clearly show the evidence upon which they are grounded." Woodward v. Fazzio, 823 P.2d 474, 477 (Utah Ct.App. 1991). "For findings of fact to be adequate, they `must show that the court's judgment or decree "follows logically from, and is supported by, the evidence." 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."'" Armed Forces Ins., 2003 UT 14 at ¶ 28 (quoting Acton v. Deliran, 737 P.2d 996, 999 (Utah 1987) (citations omitted)).
In this case, the trial court made oral as well as written findings of fact. On appeal, we may consider both written and oral findings to determine their adequacy. See Utah R.Civ.P. 52(a) (stating, "It will be sufficient if the findings of fact . . . are stated orally and recorded in open court following the close of the evidence"); Martindale v. Adams, 777 P.2d 514, 517 (Utah Ct.App. 1989); Erwin v. Erwin, 773 P.2d 847, 849 (Utah Ct.App. 1989).
The trial court's Permanency Order includes a section entitled "Findings and Conclusions," that is, as argued by Mother, mostly conclusory.
While Mother focuses on the written findings only, the trial court's oral findings detail the Division of Child and Family Services's (DCFS) twice removing the children from Mother's home, Mother's history of traumatizing or endangering her children, her failure to comply with medical instructions to control her diabetes, her history of missing or arriving late at counseling sessions, and her undermining the court process by falsely stating she had permission from the juvenile court or from DCFS to visit the children. The trial court also found that Mother had recently endangered one of her children by removing him from his maternal grandfather's house when he was very ill, and that Mother continued "to sabotage and corrupt services for her own children on a covert level, [and] that [she] has not internalized any of the therapeutic and parenting services that she's receiving."
Contrary to Mother's contention, a review of the court's oral findings reveals the subsidiary facts and basis for the juvenile court's written findings and demonstrates that the written and oral findings, taken together, are sufficiently detailed to permit appellate review. Furthermore, the findings support the trial court's conclusions and order regarding permanency goals and placement of the children.
Mother does not argue that there is not sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings, only that they are legally insufficient. Having determined that the written and oral findings, when considered together, are sufficient, we decline Mother's request for a remand.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Russell W. Bench, Judge, and Gregory K. Orme, Judge.