Background
Bridget Lee Bofysil moved for sole legal custody of the parties’ child, alleging that recurring disputes over education and medical care impeded the child’s best interests and could be resolved only through counsel or court intervention. She separately sought to move the child from homeschooling to public school.
The trial court orally denied the custody motion for lack of a material change of circumstances, while scheduling an evidentiary hearing on school choice. During the nearly eight months before the court entered a written custody order, the parties litigated additional disputes involving school choice, academic testing, and medical appointments. The eventual written order denied sole legal custody “for the reasons stated on the record,” finding no proper cause or change of circumstances.
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, the controlling decision was the order entered nearly eight months after the oral ruling—not the earlier oral pronouncement.
The appellate court could not determine whether the trial court considered the motions, hearings, and disputes arising between its oral ruling and written order. That uncertainty prevented meaningful review of the trial court’s factual findings under the great-weight-of-the-evidence standard. On remand, the parties may supplement their pleadings with current grounds for their positions if necessary.
Key Takeaways
- A Michigan trial court speaks through its written orders and judgments, not its earlier oral pronouncements.
- A custody ruling must create a record sufficient for appellate review of findings concerning proper cause or a change of circumstances.
- When substantial time and additional custody-related disputes intervene before entry of a written order, the record must make clear what evidence and events the trial court considered.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes the need for prompt, clear written custody rulings that identify the factual record supporting the court’s decision. When later events potentially affect a child’s well-being, an appellate court cannot simply assume that the trial court incorporated them into a delayed written order.
The Court of Appeals did not hold that sole legal custody was warranted. It required the trial court to decide the motion anew on a record that permits meaningful appellate review.