In Re Marriage of Buser

Opinion

KING, J.

A-C

*

D.

The absence of reasons for denial of joint custody and of an order requiring joint consent over decisions affecting the child.

Douglas Buser contends there were two deficiencies in the orders denying his request for joint custody of his children which require reversal.

[642]

The first claim is that the orders were defective because they did not include reasons for the ruling on the joint custody issue pursuant to Civil Code section 4600.5, subdivision (c). That provision states in pertinent part, “Whenever a request for joint custody is granted or denied, the court, upon the request of any party, shall state in its decision the reasons for granting or denying the request.”

The order denying joint custody filed December 17, 1984, did not contain reasons for the denial. The issue of joint custody was submitted no later than September 14,1984, when the court announced its tentative decision in open court. Douglas made his request for a statement of reasons under Civil Code section 4600.5, subdivision (c), on January 30, 1985. He argues there is no time limit within which a request for reasons must be made, thus the failure of the court to act upon his request requires reversal of the order.

Since the Legislature has not prescribed a time within which a party must make a request that the court state its reasons for granting or denying a motion for joint custody, the request must occur within a reasonable time. Douglas erroneously equates a statement of reasons with the more formal statement of decision, but even then his request would be untimely. Because of his argument, we examine the statutes providing for a statement of reasons and a statement of decision.

We first note that neither statement is required absent a request. Civil Code section 4600.5, subdivision (c), provides that the court “shall state in its decision the reasons for granting or denying the request” for joint custody. Code of Civil Procedure section 632 provides that “the court shall issue a statement of decision explaining the factual and legal basis for its decision as to each of the principal controverted issues at trial.” In utilizing different language in each statute the Legislature clearly intended to distinguish a statement of reasons from a statement of decision. Otherwise, the Legislature would simply have provided for a statement of decision when joint custody is granted or denied.