between the parties. The report simply recommended that the situation would improve if the parties lived closer to each other, thus making it easier for Appellee to exercise her visitation, which in turn would lead to less friction. This is not the standard for determining whether a custody order should be modified, nor is the fact that Dr. Bloomfield found “no overwhelming” reason to keep the status quo. Nota-' bly, the custody evaluator did not suggest changing custody; rather, he suggested the situation would improve if the parties lived closer together. In Ogilvie, this court reiterated that parents’ inability to communicate does not satisfy the substantial change requirement for modification. 954 So.2d at 701. See also Sanchez v. Hernandez, 45 So.3d 57, 62 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>); Ring v. Ring, 834 So.2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA
holding fact that the parties failed to communicate and had continuing hostility does not constitute a material change in custody to warrant modification of custody holding that a custodial parents move to a foreign state without more is not a substantial change of circumstances that would support a modification of custody holding the teenage childrens preference to live in fathers home was sufficient evidence to support a change in physical custody in a modification of a split physical custody arrangement even though the party seeking the change failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances holding that an employer seeking modification must show a change in claimants physical condition holding father seeking custody modification needed to prove more than merely an acrimonious relationship and a lack of effective communication in order to show a substantial change