OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
CLINTON, Judge.
In a trial before the court on a plea of not guilty, appellant was convicted of sexual assault pursuant to V.T.C.A. Penal Code, § 22.011(a)(2)(A). Punishment was assessed at fifteen years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Supreme Judicial District affirmed. Wicker v. State, 696 S.W.2d 680 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1985, pet. granted).
Appellant brings three grounds for review. Specifically, appellant contends that his objection as to the voluntariness of his “confession” was properly preserved, that the lower courts erred in concluding that specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the voluntariness of appellant’s statement were unnecessary prior to the admission of that statement in evidence against appellant in a trial before the court, and that the lower courts misconstrued Article 38.22, § 6, V.A.C.C.P., in that appellant’s statutory and constitutional rights were violated by the failure of an employee of the Texas Department of Human Resources to warn appellant that any statement made by appellant could be used against him in a subsequent criminal proceeding. After setting forth the facts in sufficient detail to facilitate our discussion of appellant’s grounds for review, we shall address these grounds seriatim.
I.
In March, 1984, the fourteen year old complainant, L.C.P., was living in Balch Springs, near Dallas, with her stepmother, Angela Wicker, hereinafter Wicker, and her father, appellant in this case. Also residing with them were appellant’s two sons and appellant’s stepmother. Approximately the ninth of March, Wicker and appellant’s stepmother left the family residence to go shopping. L.C.P. was instructed to remain on the front porch to supervise her two young brothers. Appellant [781]*781had been ill with “the flu” that day and had remained home from work.
L.C.P. went inside the house to place a spoon in the sink, and was returning to the front porch when appellant, her father, summoned her to him. Initially she refused the request, informing her father that she had been instructed to supervise her two young brothers. Then L.C.P. approached her father, who was at that time on the couch watching television. Appellant told her to go to his bedroom, and she refused. Appellant then told her to go to her own bedroom and L.C.P. complied. Her trial testimony indicated that appellant “pushed me towards my bedroom.”
L.C.P. went to her bedroom and initially sat on the bed and then “laid back” on the bed. Appellant’s confession states that he attempted to remove her pants but was unsuccessful, and that L.C.P. then removed her own pants and laid back on her bed. L.C.P.’s trial testimony indicated that appellant removed her pants. Both parties agree that appellant and L.C.P. then engaged in sexual intercourse and that appellant “did not use any force” immediately prior to or during the act. Afterward L.C. P. got dressed and was instructed by appellant not to tell anyone what had occurred.
Later on the same evening, L.C.P. did inform her stepmother, Wicker, of the alleged sexual assault. Wicker discussed the matter at length with appellant, out of L.C.P.’s presence.
On April 2, 1984, a referral, from a source not revealed in the record, was received by the Dallas County Child Welfare in which it was alleged that L.C.P. was being sexually abused by her father, appellant. Pursuant to this referral, Paul Thati-ah, a social worker with the Texas Department of Human Resources, interviewed L.C.P. at her school in the presence of her school counselor. Based upon this interview, Thatiah “had to take her into protective custody,” pursuant to Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 17.03(a)(5) (Vernon 1986). Thatiah attempted to contact Wicker by phone but was unsuccessful. On April 4, an assistant district attorney for Dallas County filed cause number 84-373X-305 in the district court for the 305th judicial district. That action is styled “In The Interest of [L.C.P.], a Child,” and is entitled “Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship, Petition for Temporary Restraining Order, Emergency Care and For Temporary Managing Conser-vatorship.” See Tex.Fam.Code Ann. §§ 17.02, 17.03 (Vernon 1986). This action was based upon affidavits by Thatiah and L.C.P.
At some point not reflected in the record, Thatiah contacted Wicker by phone and discussed the alleged sexual assault with her. Appellant was out of town at that time, but Wicker contacted him and discussed the situation with Thatiah. Appellant called Thatiah on Sunday, April 8th, to discuss L.C.P.’s allegations. According to Thatiah’s description of the call, appellant was “kind of dejected and depressed” and “confessed to me over the phone that he had done it, and said he was sorry and felt that he needed treatment." Wicker, testified that Thatiah “promised” that if appellant would “come in and tell his story,” Thatiah “would see that he got treatment and probation, and that if he didn’t he would be in serious trouble.” Thatiah denied this statement at trial.
On Monday, April 9, appellant went to Thatiah’s office and there executed, in his own handwriting, a statement which admitted the sexual assault of L.C.P. in early March. The statement was typed and appellant swore to the statement before a notary public. Prior to making this statement, appellant received no promises or assurances1 from Thatiah and appellant received no warning as to his constitutional and statutory rights as set forth in Article 38.22, § 2, V.A.C.C.P. The record is silent as to the means through which this statement eventually found its way to the Dallas County District Attorney, although the original was apparently retained in the files of the Department of Human Resources. [782]*782Following this meeting, appellant was allowed to leave Thatiah’s office and resume his daily affairs until the time of his subsequent arrest for sexual assault.
Appellant’s trial counsel examined Thati-ah on voir dire concerning the practice followed by local office of the Texas Department of Human Resources in suspected sexual abuse cases, and elicited acknowledgment that those in the office routinely attempt to obtain a statement from the accused or suspected child abuser, and then routinely forward such statements to either the district attorney or the police. Thatiah also indicated that he did not “warn people that whatever they say will be used against them.” At the conclusion of this voir dire examination, counsel objected:
“Judge, I’d object to this witness’s testimony on the grounds that the statement, whatever statement was taken was not voluntary, there were no Miranda rights given, and that these people function as an arm of the State.”
The objection was overruled, and appellant’s statement to Thatiah was “admitted for purposes of this hearing,” subject to additional constraints not relevant to our discussion.2 No findings of fact or conclusions of law were filed with respect to the voluntariness of this statement.
II.
In his brief to the court of appeals, appellant contended that his trial counsel had raised the issue of voluntariness of the statement by means of the above quoted language and that the trial court erred by not filing findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Article 38.22, § 6, V.A.C.C.P., supra. The court of appeals responded as follows:
“Appellant recognizes that the statute applies to a jury trial; however, appellant believes there is no reason to apply a different rule in a trial before the court. We disagree.
“Under article 38.22, § 6, the trial court must hold a hearing outside the 'presence of the jury when the voluntariness of a defendant’s statement is in question. We hold there was no need for such a hearing because the appellant was tried before the court and a question as to the voluntariness of appellant’s statement was not raised. Since no hearing was necessary, no findings of fact were necessary.”3
Wicker v. State, supra, at 685. Thus the court of appeals appears to have concluded both that no issue was raised as to the voluntariness of appellant’s statement to Thatiah, and that if the issue was raised, appellant’s statutory rights were not violated as Article 38.22, supra, is inapplicable to a bench trial. In so doing, the lower court erred.
Initially we are at loss to understand the lower court’s conclusion that the issue of the voluntariness of appellant’s confession was not raised. Appellant’s trial counsel lodged the objection above quoted prior to the introduction of the confession, and that objection clearly states in pertinent part that “the statement, whatever statement was taken, was not voluntary.” Certainly the objection cannot have been overlooked in a record occupying a scant fifty-six pages of testimony.
This Court has long held that even though the defendant neither testifies, nor offers any evidence on the voluntariness of a statement or confession, a trial objection by counsel is sufficient to raise the issue and it is error for the trial court not to resolve that issue. Harris v. State, 465 S.W.2d 175, 177 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) (repeated trial objections based upon voluntariness); Moore v. State, 505 S.W.2d 887, 889 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) (single trial objection); Reed v. State, 518 S.W.2d 817, 819-20 (Tex.Cr.App.1975) (single trial objection not specifically mentioning “voluntari[783]*783ness”); Page v. State, 614 S.W.2d 819, 820-21 (Tex.Cr.App.1981) (single trial objection, not specifically mentioning “voluntariness,” addressed to the absence of judicial warnings). Of course, the trial court need not make findings of fact with “minute specificity” as to every alleged and hypothetical possibility for physical or mental coercion. Sinegal v. State, 582 S.W.2d 135, 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). But the trial court must make findings of fact and conclusions of law adequate to provide an appellate court with a basis upon which to review the trial court’s application of the law to the facts. Hester v. State, 535 S.W.2d 354, 356 (Tex.Cr.App.1976).
The court of appeals also erred in concluding that Article 38.22, § 6, supra, applies only to jury trials. Article 38.22, § 6, V.A.C.C.P., supra, reads in its entirety:
“In all cases where a question is raised as to the voluntariness of a statement of an accused, the court must make an independent finding in the absence of the jury as to whether the statement was made under voluntary conditions. If the statement has been found to have been voluntarily made and held admissible as a matter of law and fact by the court in the absence of the jury, the court must enter an order stating its conclusion as to whether or not the statement was voluntarily made, along with the specific finding of facts upon which the conclusion was based, which order shall be filed among the papers of the cause. Such order shall not be exhibited to the jury nor the finding thereof made known to the jury in any manner. Upon the finding by the judge as a matter of law and fact that the statement was voluntarily made, evidence pertaining to such matters may be submitted to the jury and it shall be instructed that unless the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntarily made, the jury shall not consider such statement for any purpose nor any evidence obtained as a result thereof. In any case where a motion to suppress the statement has been filed and evidence has been submitted to the court on this issue, the court within its discretion may reconsider such evidence in his finding that the statement was voluntarily made and the same evidence submitted to the court at the hearing on the motion to suppress shall be made a part of the record the same as if it were being presented at the time of trial. However, the state or the defendant shall be entitled to present any new evidence on the issue of the volun-tariness of the statement prior to the court’s final ruling and order stating its findings.”
While it is obvious that substantial ■portions of the statute refer specifically to the procedure to be followed in a jury trial, we find no language limiting its applicability solely to those trials in which a jury sits as finder of fact. Quite the contrary, this Court has specifically held that although the trial may be to the court, a “determination by the trial judge of the defendant’s confession prior to its admission in evidence is a constitutional and statutory requirement, and such determination must distinctly appear in the record.” McKittrick v. State, 535 S.W.2d 873, 875 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), citing, Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908 (1964); Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 87 S.Ct. 639, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967); Article 38.22, § 6, V.A.C.C.P., supra. Indeed, we reiterate our prior holdings to the effect that Article 38.22, § 6, supra, is mandatory in its language and that it requires a trial court to file its findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the voluntariness of a confession whether or not the defendant objects to the absence of such omitted filing. McKittrick v. State, supra, at 876; Dykes v. State, 649 S.W.2d 633, 636 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). The procedures used in the trial court to determine the voluntariness of a defendant’s confession must “be fully adequate to insure a reliable and clear-cut determination of the voluntariness of the confession, including the resolution of the disputed facts upon which the voluntariness may depend.” Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. at 391, 84 S.Ct. at 1788, 12 L.Ed.2d at 924 (1964). This requirement is no less compelling when trial is to the court rather than to a jury.
[784]*784Whether the trial court files findings insufficient in detail to allow an appellate court to resolve the dispute upon which an appealing party predicates his appeal, as in Hester v. State, supra, and Quinn v. State, 558 S.W.2d 10 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), or no findings are made to support the ruling of the trial court on the voluntariness issue, as in Figueroa v. State, 473 S.W.2d 202 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Davis v. State, 499 S.W.2d 303 (Tex.Cr.App.1973) (opinion on original submission); McKittrick v. State, supra, the duty of the appellate court is clear. The proper procedure is that the appeal will be abated and the trial judge will be directed to reduce to writing his findings on the disputed issues surrounding the taking of appellant’s confession. McKittrick v. State, supra, at 876; Bonham v. State, 644 S.W.2d 5, 8 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). The trial judge may review the transcription of the testimony upon which his original ruling was made, if necessary, in order to refresh his recollection of the reasons behind such ruling. Hester v. State, supra, at 356; McKittrick v. State, supra, at 876.
Thus the court of appeals erred in concluding that the issue of the voluntariness of appellant’s statement to Thatiah was not properly raised and preserved on appeal, and in concluding that Article 38.22, § 6, supra, is inapplicable to a trial to the court. Wicker v. State, supra, at 685. Ordinarily we would be compelled to remand this cause to the court of appeals with instructions to abate the appeal pending compliance by the trial court with the mandate of Article 38.22, supra. However, in light of our disposition of appellant’s remaining ground for review, remand and abatement of the cause are unnecessary.
III.
Appellant’s remaining ground for review is that his rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as well as his rights under Article 38.22, supra, were violated when the statement given by him to Thatiah was admitted in evidence against him because there were no warnings issued to appellant prior to the giving of the statement. The court of appeals examined Newberry v. State, 552 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.Cr.App.1977) and Rathmell v. State, 653 S.W.2d 498 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1983, pet. ref’d) and concluded that “appellant... was not in custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way at the time he gave his statement to Mr. Thathia (sic).” Wicker v. State, supra, at 683-84. Thus the lower court concluded that appellant’s statutory and constitutional rights were not violated by the circumstances surrounding the giving of his statement to Thatiah. Id. at 684. Although we feel that appellant’s contention warrants closer analysis than provided by the lower court, we are of the opinion that the lower court has arrived at the correct disposition of that contention.
Appellant relies upon the constitutional guarantees of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, as well as the statutory provisions of Article 38.22, § 2, V.A.C.C.P.,4 to support his argument that the statement given to Thatiah was inadmissible against him [785]*785because he was not warned of his right to remain silent and his right to counsel.5
We note at the outset that this Court has recently analyzed Article 38.22, supra, and has concluded that the term “custodial interrogation” was intended by the legislature to be construed consistently with its meaning under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Bass v. State, 723 S.W.2d 687, 690-91 (Tex.Cr.App.1986). Thus, examination of the Supreme Court’s treatment of “custodial interrogation” under the Fifth Amendment will facilitate the formulation of a proper construction of Article 38.22, supra.
Naturally our analysis begins with Chief Justice Warren’s often quoted passage from Miranda v. Arizona, wherein he encapsulated the Fifth Amendment protection as follows:
“Our holding will be spelled out with some specificity in the pages which follow but briefly stated it is this: the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 706 (1966).6
In a footnote, the Court indicated that the concept of “custodial interrogation” was what it had meant in its decision in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), when it established restrictions on questioning a suspect out of the presence of counsel after the police investigation had become “focused” on the suspect. However, “focus” is not necessarily equivalent to “custody.” Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976).
Custodial interrogation occurs, and Miranda warnings are required, when questioning takes place in a prison setting during a suspect’s term of imprisonment on a separate offense, Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968), when questioning occurs in an individual’s home after he has been arrested and is no longer free to leave, Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 (1969), and, of course, when a suspect is “picked up” on less than probable cause, taken to police headquarters in a police car and subsequently questioned in an interrogation room, Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824 (1979). However, the Court has cautioned that a non-custodial situation is not converted into one in which Miranda, supra, applies in the absence of a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement merely because an appellate court concludes that the questioning occurred in a “coercive environment.” Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714, 719 (1977). Indeed, the Mathiason court noted that any questioning by police will have coercive aspects to it, simply by virtue of the police officer’s role in the law enforcement sys[786]*786tem. Police are not required to give Miranda warnings to everyone whom they question; rather, the warnings are required “only where there has been such a restriction on a person’s freedom as to render him ‘in custody.’ ” Id. at 495, 97 S.Ct. at 714, 50 L.Ed.2d at 719.
Later cases have clarified the scope and breadth of the Miranda protections. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), held that the admission at the penalty phase of capital murder trial of the testimony of a psychiatrist who conducted a court-ordered pretrial competency examination violated the defendant’s rights under both the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The court in Smith specifically concluded that the custodial interrogation to which Earnest Smith was subjected gave rise to the protections set forth in Miranda, and opined that the fact that Smith was questioned by a court-appointed psychiatrist and not a police official was “immaterial.” Id. at 467, 101 S.Ct. at 1875, 68 L.Ed.2d at 371-72. When the psychiatrist went beyond reporting to the trial court on the issue of Smith’s competence to stand trial and testified on behalf of the State at the penalty phase of Smith’s trial, then the doctor’s fundamental role changed and he became in essence an agent for the State. Thus the examination was on a par with any other unwarned post arrest custodial interrogation. Id. at 467, 101 S.Ct. at 1875, 68 L.Ed.2d at 372. Miranda has since been extended to cover custodial interrogation of one suspected of even a misdemeanor traffic offense. Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984).
The Miranda doctrine is not without its limitations, of course. For instance, the protection afforded by Miranda is inapplicable in those situations in which there is a prompt or immediate concern for public safety, New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), as well as in those situations involving only roadside questioning of one stopped pursuant to a traffic violation. Berkemer v. McCarty, supra.
The ultimate inquiry is simply whether there is a “formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement” of the degree associated with a formal arrest. California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 3520, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275, 1279 (1983). Certainly a person need not be under “formal” arrest in order to be considered being in custody. This Court has delineated a set of factors which are to be examined in light of the specific facts of each case to ascertain whether a person is “in custody,” so as to invoke the protections of Miranda, supra, and thus Article 38.22, supra. Those factors are whether probable cause to arrest existed, whether the defendant was the focus of the investigation, the subjective intent of the police, and the subjective belief of the defendant. Shiflet v. State, 732 S.W.2d 622, 629 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Turner v. State, 685 S.W.2d 38, 42 (Tex.Cr.App.1985); Ruth v. State, 645 S.W.2d 432 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Newberry v. State, 552 S.W.2d 457 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Ancira v. State, 516 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
An examination of these factors, with reference to the facts of appellant’s case, demonstrates that he was not “in custody” at the time he gave his statement to Thatiah. As was the case in Shiflet, supra, Turner, supra, and Brown v. State, 475 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Cr.App.1971), appellant voluntarily went to Thatiah’s office to provide a statement. Indeed, although the testimony was controverted as to whether Thatiah offered to assist appellant in obtaining treatment and probation in exchange for a statement, there is no contention that appellant was not allowed to leave Thatiah’s office after the statement was given. Moreover, appellant orally admitted having engaged in sexual intercourse with L.C.P. to Thatiah in a telephone call on Sunday, April 8. That call was initiated by appellant, in response to Thatiah’s earlier calls to appellant’s wife. Appellant repeated the substance of this statement to Thatiah the following day during their discussion in Thatiah’s office. While it is true that Thatiah suggested that appellant reduce the statement to writing, there is nothing to suggest that appellant’s free[787]*787dom of action was in any way hampered before, during, or after he agreed to execute the written statement.
Appellant stresses on appeal that Thati-ah’s having taken L.C.P. into protective custody, the subsequent filing of a suit to terminate appellant’s parental rights, and the alleged promises of treatment and probation in exchange for a statement combine to establish a coercive atmosphere in which appellant was functionally “in custody.” However, the Supreme Court has cautioned that a non-custodial situation is not converted into one in which Miranda, supra, applies in the absence of a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement merely because an appellate court concludes that the questioning occurred in a “coercive environment.” Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 714, 50 L.Ed.2d 714, 719. While this case is a close one indeed, we are unable to conclude that these circumstances amount to “custodial interrogation.” Assuming arguendo that Thatiah was an agent of the State,7 we are unable to distinguish this case from Oregon v. Mathiason, supra, wherein the Supreme Court concluded that no custodial interrogation had occurred.
Indeed, the facts of Mathiason are more compelling than those of appellant’s case. Mathiason was a parolee who was suspected of involvement in a neighborhood theft. He voluntarily went to the office of the Oregon State Police and discussed the matter with an agent of the state police. The interview lasted approximately thirty minutes and during the initial portion of the interview the police officer (falsely) told Mathiason that his fingerprints were found at the scene of the burglary. Mathiason confessed his guilt within the first five minutes of the interview, received the Miranda warnings, and provided police with a taped confession. At the end of the interview, Mathiason was allowed to leave the offices of the state police and the interrogating officer informed him that he was referring the case to the district attorney. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 493-94, 97 S.Ct. at 713, 50 L.Ed.2d at 718. The per curiam opinion, expressing the views of six members of the Court, concluded that there was “no indication that the questioning took place in a context where [Mathiason’s] freedom to depart was restricted in any way.” Id. at 495, 97 S.Ct. at 714, 50 L.Ed. 2d at 719. After noting that any questioning by police authorities will have some coercive elements, the Court cautioned that the Miranda protections are not to be imposed “simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect.” Id. Assuming, arguendo, that Thatiah may be considered the functional equivalent of a police officer, and that his office is the functional equivalent of the station house, we are unable to conclude that appellant’s interview with Thatiah falls within the ambit of custodial interrogation.
Neither the protections set forth in Miranda, supra, nor those of Article 38.22, supra, prohibit the introduction of appellant’s confession. Subject to our earlier remarks regarding compliance with the mandate of Article 38.22, § 6, supra, and viewed from the unusual and peculiar circumstances of this case, we hold that appellant was not in custody when he made his oral statements to Thatiah. The statement was admissible evidence pursuant to Article 38.22, supra.
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.