readily gleaned by this Court from the record, the laudable and indispensable goal of proper appellate review is thwarted. As the Supreme Court of Wisconsin emphasized in In re T.R.M., 100 Wis.2d 681, 303 N.W.2d 581 (1981), “[adequate findings must be made in order to protect the rights of litigants and to facilitate review of the record by an appellate court.” Id. at 583. The Wisconsin court also emphasized that the trial court’s “findings are also deficient with respect to a lack of a specific and formal determination regarding the best interests of ... [the child]” and noted that the trial court was “under an obligation to make findings with regard to the best interests of the child in relation to the evidence adduced.” Id; see also In re Welfare of M.M., 452 N.W.2d 236 (Minn.1990) (<HOLDING>). In In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 87A262,
recognizing appellate courts must not make fact findings holding failure to make explicit findings of fact and conclusions of law did not preclude meaningful appellate review holding that when trial courts decision turns on question of law appellate review is de novo holding trial courts findings of fact inadequate to facilitate effective appellate review and reversing decision after independent review of record holding that it is not an appellate courts function to make findings of fact