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 SUBSTANTIALXOMPETENT 'EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT THE LOWER COURT 'S DENIAL OF PETITIONER
MOTION FOR UNSUPERVISED TIMESHARING?

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