Whether the trial court's denial of unsupervised timesharing was improper due to lack of specific findings of fact or conclusions of law

1 SHOULD THE TRIAL COURT ’S DENIAL OF THE PETITIONER ’S MOTION FOR UNSUPERVISED TIMESHARING SHOULD BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE ORDER DENYING THE MOTION DOES NOT CONTAIN SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT OR CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SUFFICIENT TO DETERMINE IF THE COURT ’S DECISION WAS BASED UPON THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD? 2 DID THE TRIAL COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENTED PETITIONER ’S MOTION FOR UNSUPERVISED RELEASE BECMJSE THEREWAS NO ’EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE LOWER COURT ’S DENIAL OF PETITIONER MOTION FOR UNSUPERVISED TIMESHARING? 2