Background
Bridget Lee Bofysil moved for sole legal custody of the parties’ child, alleging that recurring disagreements over education and medical care impeded the child’s best interests and repeatedly required intervention by counsel or the trial court. She also sought an order moving the child from homeschooling to public school.
The trial court orally denied the custody motion after finding no material change of circumstances since the prior custody order, while setting an evidentiary hearing on school choice. During the nearly eight months before the court entered a written custody order, the parties litigated additional disputes concerning schooling, academic testing, and medical appointments. The eventual written order denied sole legal custody “for the reasons stated on the record,” but did not make clear whether the court considered the intervening proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals vacated the 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 issued almost eight months after the oral ruling.
The appellate court could not determine what factual findings supported that order or whether the trial court considered the disputes, motions, and hearings that occurred during the intervening period. Without a sufficient record, the court could not review whether the findings on proper cause or changed circumstances were against the great weight of the evidence. On remand, the parties may supplement their pleadings with current grounds for their positions if necessary.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court’s written custody order controls over an earlier oral ruling.
- The record must identify the findings and evidence underlying a custody decision so an appellate court can conduct meaningful review.
- Intervening parental disputes potentially affecting the child’s well-being may be relevant to whether proper cause or changed circumstances exist.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the need for prompt, clear written custody rulings that reveal both the evidence considered and the findings made. When substantial events occur between an oral ruling and the controlling written order, ambiguity about whether those events were considered can require vacatur and a new decision.