its discretion by ordering a modification of custody because “[t]he evidence presented here did not amount to a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a post-dissolution modification of custody.” Id. at 361. The crux of Appellee’s request for modification is Appellant’s decision to move the children to a new home 28 miles from their previous home. Appellee sought a modification of custody based on “a substantial change in circumstances,” including Appellant’s decision to move out of the former marital home and relocate to the adjoining county, failure to allow “frequent and liberal visitation and telephonic communication” between Appellee and the children, and changing the children’s schools. Our review of the record shows that each of these alleged instanc . 2d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>); Jablon, 579 So.2d at 904 (holding “[t]he fact
holding court cannot change custody without showing that change is in best interests of child 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 a hearing is required when a modification of parenting time would change the established custodial environment 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 that change of circumstances is not prerequisite to additional   3583e2 modification