end result inquiry in Arizona

2026The “court is not required to list each and every fact relied upon,” but it “must include ‘all of the ultimate facts[,’]” which “are at least the essential and determinative facts on which the conclusion was reached.” Id. (quoting Elliott v. Elliott, 165 Ariz. 128, 132 (App. 1990)).

2022To survive a challenge to the adequacy of the superior court’s findings, “[i]t must be clear [from the findings] how the court actually did arrive at its conclusions.” Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Ariz. 49, 51 (App. 1996) (alteration in original) (quoting Elliott v. Elliott, 165 Ariz. 128, 135 (App. 1990)). ¶27 A court does not have to detail each fact that supports its ruling, Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

2026Written factual findings “aid appellate review” and ensure due process by “‘prompt[ing] judges to consider issues more carefully because they are required to state not only the end result of their inquiry, but the process by which they reached it.’” Logan B. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 532 , 538 ¶ 18 (App. 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Miller v. Bd. of Supervisors of Pinal Cnty., 175 Ariz. 296, 299 (1993)). ¶25 On appeal, we require “at least one sufficiently specific finding to support each of the court’s conclusions of law.” Logan B., 244 Ariz. at 537 ¶ 15.

2022Findings also serve other important purposes, “including prompt[ing] judges to consider issues more carefully because they are required to state not only the end result of their inquiry, but the process by which they reached it.” Logan B. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 244 Ariz. 532 , 538, ¶ 18 (App. 2018) (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Miller v. Bd. of Supervisors, 175 Ariz. 296 , 299 (1993)).

2023Second, Rule 353(h) also “prompt[s] judges to consider issues more carefully because they are required to state not only the end result of their inquiry, but the process by which they reached it.” Francine C. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 249 Ariz. 289 , 296 ¶ 13 (App. 2020) (quoting Logan B., 244 Ariz. at 538 ¶ 18). ¶12 Although the court’s written findings must include all “ultimate” facts necessary to resolve the disputed issues, they need not include every “evidentiary fact[] upon which the ultimate facts are based.” Ruben M., 230 Ariz. at 241 ¶ 25.

2021This rule’s primary purpose “is to allow the appellate court to determine exactly which issues were decided and whether the lower court correctly applied the law.” Ruben M., 230 Ariz. at 240, ¶ 24 (discussing findings in the context of termination proceedings). ¶8 Specific factual findings “prompt judges to consider issues more carefully because they are required to state not only the end result of their inquiry, but the process by which they reached it.” Logan B., 244 Ariz. at 538, ¶ 18 (citations omitted).

2022To survive a challenge to the adequacy of the superior court’s findings, “[i]t must be clear [from the findings] how the court actually did arrive at its conclusions.” Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Ariz. 49, 51 (App. 1996) (alteration in original) (quoting Elliott v. Elliott, 165 Ariz. 128, 135 (App. 1990)). ¶27 A court does not have to detail each fact that supports its ruling, Christy C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

2020“It must be clear [from the findings] how the court actually did arrive at its conclusions.” Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Ariz. 49, 51 (App. 1996) (alteration in original) (quoting Elliott v. Elliott, 165 Ariz. 128, 135 (App. 1990)). ¶14 Although the juvenile court does not have to detail each fact that supports its ruling, Christy C. v. ADES, 214 Ariz. 445, 451-52, ¶ 19 (App. 2007), its findings must include all of the “ultimate facts,” Ruben M., 230 Ariz. at 241, ¶ 25 . “[U]ltimate facts are at least the essential and determinative facts on which the conclusion was reached.

2018Opinion of the Court required to state not only the end result of their inquiry, but the process by which they reached it.’” Miller, 175 Ariz. at 299 (quoting United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192, 199 (1964)). ¶19 “As the trier of fact in a termination proceeding, the juvenile court ‘is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts.’” Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 282, 286, ¶ 16 (App. 2016) (quoting Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

2013Findings and conclusions also prompt judges to consider issues carefully because “ ‘they are required to state not only the end result of their inquiry, but the process by which they reached it.’ ” Miller, 175 Ariz. at 299 , 855 P.2d at 1360 (quoting United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192, 199 , 84 S.Ct. 639, 643 , 11 L.Ed.2d 629 (1964)).

2020“It must be clear [from the findings] how the court actually did arrive at its conclusions.” Kelsey v. Kelsey, 186 Ariz. 49, 51 (App. 1996) (alteration in original) (quoting Elliott v. Elliott, 165 Ariz. 128, 135 (App. 1990)). ¶14 Although the juvenile court does not have to detail each fact that supports its ruling, Christy C. v. ADES, 214 Ariz. 445, 451-52, ¶ 19 (App. 2007), its findings must include all of the “ultimate facts,” Ruben M., 230 Ariz. at 241, ¶ 25 . “[U]ltimate facts are at least the essential and determinative facts on which the conclusion was reached.

2018Opinion of the Court required to state not only the end result of their inquiry, but the process by which they reached it.’” Miller, 175 Ariz. at 299 (quoting United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192, 199 (1964)). ¶19 “As the trier of fact in a termination proceeding, the juvenile court ‘is in the best position to weigh the evidence, observe the parties, judge the credibility of witnesses, and resolve disputed facts.’” Jennifer S. v. Dep’t of Child Safety, 240 Ariz. 282, 286, ¶ 16 (App. 2016) (quoting Jordan C. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.

2018Sec., 223 Ariz. 86, 93, ¶ 18 (App. 2009)).

2013Further, and of critical importance here, findings permit an appellate court to examine the basis and grounds relied on by a superior court in reaching “the ultimate judgment.” Id. ¶ 35 Findings of fact are sufficient if they are “ ‘pertinent to the issues and comprehensive enough to provide a basis for the decision.’ ” Id. (quoting Gilliland v. Rodriquez, 77 Ariz. 163, 167 , 268 P.2d 334, 337 (1954)).

2013Further, and of critical importance here, findings permit an appellate court to examine the basis and grounds relied on by a superior court in reaching “the ultimate judgment.” Id. ¶ 35 Findings of fact are sufficient if they are “ ‘pertinent to the issues and comprehensive enough to provide a basis for the decision.’ ” Id. (quoting Gilliland v. Rodriquez, 77 Ariz. 163, 167 , 268 P.2d 334, 337 (1954)).