Background
Bridget Lee Bofysil moved for sole legal custody of the parties’ child, alleging recurring disagreements with Sarah Lynne Bofysil over education and medical care that required intervention by counsel or the circuit court. She separately sought to move the child from homeschooling to public school.
The circuit court orally denied the custody motion after finding no material change of circumstances since the prior custody order, but it did not immediately enter a written custody order. During the following eight months, the court conducted proceedings concerning school choice, academic testing, and medical appointments. It eventually entered a written order denying sole legal custody “for the reasons stated on the record,” prompting Bridget’s appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals vacated the written order and remanded for a new decision on the motion for sole legal custody. Because a trial court speaks through its written orders rather than its oral pronouncements, the controlling decision was the written order entered almost eight months after the oral ruling.
The record did not establish whether the circuit court considered the parties’ intervening disputes, motions, and hearings when it entered that order. Without knowing what evidence the court considered or what factual findings it made, the appellate court could not determine whether the findings concerning proper cause or changed circumstances were against the great weight of the evidence.
On remand, the circuit court must issue a new custody decision. Given the delay and intervening events, the Court of Appeals permitted the parties to supplement their pleadings with current grounds for their positions if necessary.
Key Takeaways
- A Michigan trial court speaks through its written orders, not its earlier oral pronouncements.
- A custody record must disclose the factual findings and evidence considered well enough to permit meaningful appellate review.
- Material events occurring between an oral ruling and a delayed written order may need to be considered in deciding whether proper cause or changed circumstances justify revisiting custody.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of promptly entering clear written custody orders, particularly when disputes affecting a child continue after an oral ruling. A substantial delay coupled with an ambiguous record can prevent meaningful review and require the custody question to be decided again.
The Court of Appeals did not hold that sole legal custody was warranted. It required the circuit court to make a new, reviewable decision on the custody motion using a record that can account for relevant intervening developments.