What happens when trial courts fail to make adequate findings in custody cases? Risher v. Emerson Explained

In Risher v. Emerson, the Utah Court of Appeals reversed a custody determination and remanded the case because the trial court failed to make adequate factual findings or provide reasoning for its conclusions. This case serves as an important reminder of the foundational requirement that trial courts articulate their decision-making process in custody matters.

Background and Facts

Michael Risher and Amy Emerson, unmarried parents of a child born in December 2013, initially arranged informal visitation and child support. When disputes arose, Risher filed a petition for parentage in February 2015. After reaching stipulations on many issues, the parties proceeded to a one-day trial in March 2016 on remaining custody and visitation matters. The trial court awarded sole physical custody to Emerson and established a visitation schedule, but the signed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” document contained no actual findings or reasoning.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the trial court’s custody determination could withstand appellate review when the court failed to make any factual findings or articulate the basis for its decision. Risher challenged the sole physical custody award, the visitation schedule reduction, and the limitation on his right of first refusal to twelve times per year.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals emphasized that adequate findings of fact enable meaningful appellate review by allowing courts to understand the trial court’s reasoning and assess compliance with governing law. The court noted that findings must be “sufficiently detailed and include enough subsidiary facts to disclose the steps by which” the trial court reached its conclusion. Because custody determinations are “highly personal and individual,” the factors relied upon “must be articulable and articulated in the judge’s written findings and conclusions.”

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that trial courts cannot simply sign proposed findings without ensuring they contain actual factual determinations and reasoning. Even when counsel prepares findings, once signed, they become the court’s statements and must adequately support the conclusions reached.