OPINION
By the Court,
This is аn appeal from a judgment awarding the respondеnt husband a divorce. The only question raised on apрeal concerns the award of custody of the children to respondent.
*231 The trial court found that the cljjldrеn, two boys aged respectively 11 and 5, were in the custody of the respondent during the pendency of the action and it was the court’s conclusion that they should remаin there, except for certain visitation periоds. It expressly found that appellant “is not a proрer person to have custody of these minor childrеn.”
It was admitted by appellant during the trial and conceded by her attorney in his opening brief herein that appellant had been guilty of adultery. Other evidence in the rеcord showed appellant’s neglect of the сhildren and of the household. Appellant nevertheless contends that since the court did not expressly find that respondent was a fit and proper person to have custody, the award of custody to him was error, particularly in view of the fact that he was 55 years of age while appellant was 41, and because of evidence that he had used improper language in the рresence of the children. In our opinion this contention is devoid of merit.
Rule 52(a) N.R.C.P. provides that in all actiоns tried without a jury “the court shall find the facts specially and state separately - its conclusions of law thereon.” There was no allegation in respondent’s cоmplaint that he was a fit and proper person, although respondent in his answer to appellant’s cross-complaint did deny that she was a fit and proper person to have custody of the minor children. The trial сourt made express findings on all of the material mattеrs pleaded and the finding that the children should remain in the сustody of respondent is an implied finding that he was a fit and proper person. Rule 52(a), therefore, was not violated. Garibaldi Bros. Trucking Co. v. Waldren,
It will be assumed that the сourt considered the present comfort and future wеll-being of the children as required by NRS 125.140. “The court’s keen desirе to make such arrangement as seemed for the best interests of the children is manifest throughout the hearing.” Couturier v. Couturier,
*232
The trial court is vested with a large discretion in determining what is for a child’s best welfare. Murphy v. Murphy,
The lower court had the opportunity to see and observе the parties and from their demeanor on the witness stand appraise their relative fitness. Furthermore the two boys were interviewed by the judge in chambers. These cirсumstances, together with the abundance of evidenсe in the record to support the court’s findings and conclusions require affirmance of the judgment.
Judgment affirmed.